
Class ^R Xfe 3 8 

Book i±LQ 

OofyrightN . 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 




EDGAR ESTES FOLK, JR. 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

LETTERS TO MY SON 



EDGAR ESTES FOLK, A.M., D.D. 

Editor of Baptist and Reflector, Nashville, Term. 

Author of The Mormon Monster ; The Folk-McQuiddy Discussion 

on the Plan of Salvation, etc. 



Price: $1.00, Postpaid 



Sunday School Board Southern 

Baptist Convention 

Nashville, Tenn. 



^ 






COPYRIGHTED BY 

SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION. 



eCLA251A'J1 



DEDICATION 



To my son, Edgar Estes Folk, Jr>> to whom the letters are 
addressed, this book is affectionately dedicated, with the earnest 
hope that as he reads its pages he may be led not only to become a 
true Christian, but a believer in and firm advocate of the Baptist 
principles herein discussed, as I trust also may be the case with 
many other boys who may read the book. 

— THE AUTHOR. 

(3) 



A WORD WITH THE PUBLIC 



The following Letters were published in the 
Baptist and Reflector, of Nashville, Tenn., of 
which the author is editor, and, in response to 
numerous requests, are now published in book 
form. In its preparation I have had impressed 
upon me afresh the importance of our Baptist 
principles. At the same time, I have been im- 
pressed with the ignorance of the world — and I 
regret to have to add, of many Baptists — with 
regard to those principles. It has also been a 
matter of surprise to me that there are not more 
books on this subject. While there are a good 
' many books discussing Baptist doctrines of 
various kinds, there are very few which discuss 
the fundamental Baptist principles in a compre- 
hensive . form. I send forth this volume to the 
world, hoping that it may have the effect of 
strengthening Baptists in their faith and of lead- 
ing others to know our Baptist principles and, 
knowing them, to accept them. 

Edgar E. Folk. 

Nashville, Tenn., May 7, 1909. 
(4) 



SUBJECTS OF THE LETTERS 



PAGE 

Introduction 7 

1 . Loyalty to God's Word .... 13 

2. Individualism 24 

3. Religious Liberty , 36 

4. Separation of Church and State 57 

5. A Spiritual Religion 71 

6. Regeneration 86 

7. Regeneration Before Church Membership 117 

8. Salvation by Grace Through Faith 1 22 

9. Salvation by Grace Through Faith, Not of Works . 1 29 

10. Salvation by Grace Through Faith, Not of Baptism. 139 

11. Faith and Works 150 

12. Baptism — Its Form, What the Bible Says 156 

13. Baptism — Its Form, What Scholars Say 164 

14. Baptism — Its Design 181 

15. Baptism — Is It in Order to Salvation? 186 

16. Baptism — Its Design, Passages of Scripture 192 

17. Baptism — Its Design, Other Passages of Scripture. 199 

1 8. Believer's Baptism 205 

19. The Lord's Supper 2lQ 

20. Congregationalism 237 

21. Church Independence and Interdependence 249 

22. Baptists in History 253 

23. Baptist Martyrs 263 

24. Some Prominent Baptists 275 

25. Baptist Hymn Writers 280 

26. Baptist Growth 292 

(5) 



BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 



Judge Story : "In the code of laws established 
by them (the Baptists) in Rhode Island, we read, 
for the first time since Christianity ascended the 
throne of the Caesars, the declaration that con- 
science should be free, and that men should not 
be punished for worshiping God in the way they 
were persuaded he requires. " 

Bancroft: "Freedom of conscience, unlimited 
freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of 
the Baptists" 

John Locke : "The Baptists were the first and 
only propounders of absolute liberty, just and 
true liberty, equal and impartial liberty/' 

(6) 



INTRODUCTION 



My Dear Son : — As you know, I am a Baptist. 
My father was a Baptist before me. My mother 
is a Baptist. His father and mother were Bap- 
tists. Her father and mother were Baptists. 
And so, as far back as I can distinctly trace 
them, my people have been Baptists. Thus I 
imbibed Baptist principles from my infancy. I 
began going to a Baptist Sunday school at so 
early an age I do not recall the time. When a 
boy thirteen years of age I was born again under 
the influence of the Spirit of God. This never- 
to-be-forgotten event occurred in the old Baptist 
church at Brownsville, Tenn. It was natural, 
therefore, that I should join a Baptist church — 
the Brownsville Baptist church. 

I am also, as you know, a Baptist preacher. I 
was ordained to the Baptist ministry in the Bap- 
tist church at Murfreesboro, Tenn., where I was 
pastor, in June, 1882. Dr. T. G. Jones, then pas- 
tor of the First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tenn., 
preached the ordination sermon. I have been an 
ordained Baptist preacher, therefore, for over a 
quarter of a century. Before I was ordained, I 
had frequently preached. In fact, from the time 

(7) 



8 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

of my conversion I had decided to give myself 
to the ministry, so as to be of the greatest use- 
fulness in the service of Christ. For nearly 
twenty years I have been editor of the Baptist 
and Reflector, the organ of the Baptists of Ten- 
nessee. 

You are not yet a Christian. But I hope and 
pray that you may soon give your heart to Christ. 
When you do, the next question will come as to 
the church you should join. Naturally, you 
would be disposed to join a Baptist church, be- 
cause both your mother and myself are Baptists. 
But I want you to have a better reason for being 
a Baptist than simply because your father and 
mother are. I want you to be a Baptist, of 
course. But I want you to know why you are 
a Baptist, and to be able to give a reason for 
the faith that is in you to any one that may ask 
you. 

So I address these letters to you, to tell you 
about these Baptist people, who they are, where 
they came from, what they believe, and why they 
believe it. I shall try to tell these things in as 
simple and plain a manner as possible, so that you 
will be able to comprehend the truths expressed. 

Let me begin by telling you of a scene which 
occurred in my boyhood : 

It was on a bright, beautiful afternoon in Sep- 
tember, 1869. A company of 1,000 or more peo- 
ple assembled on the banks of a river in West 



INTRODUCTION * 

Tennessee. The river was about fifty yards wide. 
There was a considerable bend at that point. On 
one side was a steep bluff, with a forest of oak 
trees back of it, forming a fine landscape. On 
the other side there was a sandbar. The banks 
on that side sloped gradually into the river. The 
bottom was firm and hard. Back of the river on 
that side were willow trees and bushes. 

A group of people standing near the water's 
edge" were singing : 

"O happy day, that fixed my choice 

On thee, my Saviour and my God. 
Well may this glowing heart rejoice, 
And tell its raptures all abroad. 

"Happy day, happy day, 
When Jesus washed my sins away. 
He taught me how to watch and pray, 
And live rejoicing every day. 
Happy day, happy day, 
When Jesus washed my sins away." 

A slender, dark-eyed, black-haired man led a 
number of young people down into the river and 
one by one dipped them under in the water, and 
very gently raised them up out of the water. He 
then led them back to the banks, some friends 
met them, threw cloaks or overcoats around them 
and took them off into the clumps of bushes to 
dress. The man who dipped the young people 
into the water, then raised his hands, said a few 



10 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

words, the people began to disperse, going back 
to town in buggies and carriages and wagons, on 
horseback, and some on foot. 

Now, that was a strange proceeding, was it 
not? Who were these people? Where did they 
come from? What do they believe? Why do 
they believe it? Let us see if we can answer 
these questions. To find out something about 
these people, let me read to you out of an old 
book I have in my library. It is called the Bible. 
Listen : 

"And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preach- 
ing in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye; for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Now John himself 
had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle 
about his loins ; and his food was locusts and wild 
hone jr. Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all 
Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan. 
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto 
John, to be baptized of him. But John would have 
hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of 
thee, and comest thou to me? But Jesus answering 
said unto him, Suffer it now; for thus it becometh us 
to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- 
way from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened 
unto him and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a 
dove and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the 
heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased." (Matthew 3' h 2, 4, 5, 13-17.) 

Listen again : 

"John came, who baptized in the wilderness and 
preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of 



INTRODUCTION 11 

sins. And there went out unto him all the country of 
Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were bap- 
tized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 
And John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a 
leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and 
wild honey. And he preached, saying, There cometh 
after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of 
whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and un- 
loose. I baptize you in water; but he shall baptize 
you in the Holy Spirit And it came to pass in those 
days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and 
was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway 
coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent 
asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him : 
and a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my be- 
loved Son, in thee I am well pleased." (Mark I : 
4-n.) 

And again: 

"Now it came to pass, when all the people were 
praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit 
descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and 
a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; 
in thee I am well pleased.'* (Luke 3: 21, 22.) 

Now, does it not sound like -the people we 
read of here were just about the same kind of 
people as those I have been telling you about? 
They did just about the same way. The people 
I have been telling you about are called Baptists. 
I was one of those who were led into the river 
and baptized. It was the Big Hatchie River in 
West Tennessee, about five miles from Browns- 
ville, at the Brownsville Landing. Here, then, 



12 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



are two scenes. One occurred in 1869, the other 
in 2y\ one in Tennessee, the other in Palestine; 
one in the Big Hatchie, the other in the River 
Jordan. But both occurred in a river. Both 
rivers are about the same size. In both the act 
was the same — they went down into the water, 
the preacher immersed the persons in the river, 
while the assembled multitudes looked on, and 
then raised them up out of the water. In both 
instances the one who did the immersing was a 
Baptist preacher. In one case he was known as 
such. In the other he was distinctly called John 
the Baptist. In the scene at the Big Hatchie the 
heavens were not opened, the Holy Spirit did not 
descend in the form of a dove, there was no aud- 
ible voice. But in all other respects the scenes 
were essentially the same. Now, does it not 
seem that the people of 1869 must have been the 
same kind of people as those of 27? That is, 
both were Baptists. It is evident, therefore, that 
the people of 1869 were not only kin to, but must 
have descended from, those of 2J. 

I have thus answered our first two questions. 
Who are these people? Where did they come 
from ? Now let us consider the other two : What 
do they believe, and why do they believe it? It 
will necessarily require considerable space to 
answer these questions. I want to answer them 
as fully as practicable so that you may have a 
thorough understanding of them. 



LETTER NO. 1 



LOYALTY TO GOD S WORD. 

My Dear Son : — Everything must have a 
foundation. There must be a foundation for a 
house, a person's character, a religion — its basis, 
something on which it may rest. The strength, 
the real value, the truth of anything will depend 
ultimately on its foundation. When the storm 
comes, if the foundation be of rock, the building 
will stand; if of sand, it will fall. And so with 
a religion. When the test comes, it must be on 
a solid foundation, or it will fall. 

There are two moral forces in the Universe — 
God and man, God in Heaven, man on earth. Is 
there any communication between them? Yes. 
The Bible is God's book. It is the revelation to 
men of his character, his will, and the unfolding 
of his purposes toward his people. The word 
Bible means the book. It is a book of books. It 
contains sixty-six different books — thirty-nine in 
the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New 
Testament. These sixty-six books were written 
by fifty men in a period extending over fifteen 
centuries. It is not only a book of books. It is 
the book of books. It is, as I said, God's book. 

(13) 



14 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

The writers were inspired by God. They were 
not his pens, but his penmen. They did not me- 
chanically write what he dictated. They pre- 
served their individuality. But he guided their 
thoughts and preserved them from error. "For 
no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but 
men spake from God, being moved by the Holy 
Spirit/' (2 Peter 1:21); "Every Scripture in- 
spired of God is also profitable for teaching, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction which is 
in righteousness : that the man of God may be 
complete, furnished completely unto every good 
work" (2 Timothy, 3 : 16, 17). This Bible, then, 
is the foundation, the basis, of Baptists, the source 
from which they derive, and the rock on which 
they build, their principles. 

By this Bible they stand or fall. To that they 
appeal as the final arbiter of any question in dis- 
pute. Their fundamental principle, then, is Loy- 
alty to God's Word. To this they owe their su- 
preme allegiance — not to Pope, or Bishop, or 
Priest, or Council, or any ecclesiastical authority, 
not to any creed or Discipline or Confession of 
Faith. Baptists do have a creed. The word 
creed comes from the Latin credo, which means, 
I believe. 

Everyone who believes anything has a creed, 
whether written or unwritten. A creed, then, is 
simply the expression of what a person believes. 
A confession of faith is what a people confess 



LOYALTY TO GOD'S WORD 15 

they think the Bible teaches. So far creeds and 
confessions are all right, and Baptists accept 
them. 

Every Baptist church has a confession of faith, 
or articles of belief. But these are not authorita- 
tive. They have no binding force. The ultimate 
appeal is not to them, but to the Bible. These 
confessions of faith or articles of belief must be 
subjected to the supreme test of the Bible for 
acceptance or rejection. In fact, so little im- 
portance is attached to them that many members 
of Baptist churches probably are not aware that 
their church has a confession of faith, and will 
be surprised to learn that it has. In any dispute 
about doctrine the Baptists always refer not to 
the confession of faith, but to the Bible. 

"The Bible, the Bible alone, the religion of 
Protestants/' was the famous saying of Chillings- 
worth. And so we may say, "The Bible, the 
Bible alone, the religion of Baptists." It is the 
rule, the guide, the arbiter, the touchstone of 
their faith and practice. 

But does not every Christian denomination, 
Catholic as well as Protestant, propose to take the 
Bible as the foundation of their faith ? Well, yes. 
But there are some important differences between 
their position and that of the Baptists. The 
greatest contrast is between the Baptists and the 
Catholics. The Catholics say that when the head 
of their denomination, the Pope, speaks ex-cath- 



16 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

edra (from the chair), that is, officially, he is 
infallible, which means that his utterances are 
of equal authority with those of the inspired 
writers of the Bible. They say also that tradition 
— the sayings of the people handed down from 
father to son all down the ages — is of equal 
authority with the Bible, or at least that it is to 
be as much a guide. 

Baptists vigorously deny both of these things. 
They insist that since the death of John, the be- 
loved disciple, who was the last writer of the New 
Testament to die, no one has been inspired by 
God to w 7 rite for the religious instruction and 
guidance of mankind ; that the Bible is a full and 
complete religious guide and does not need to 
be added to or taken from. In fact, John himself 
said in the last chapter of the last book of the 
Bible : "I testify unto every man that heareth 
the words of the prophecy of this book, If any 
man shall add unto them, God shall add unto 
him the plagues which are written in this book; 
and if any man shall take away from the words 
of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away 
his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy 
city, which are written in this book" (Rev. 22 : 

18,' 19). 

Baptists insist, too, that tradition is very unre- 
liable, that any saying, even if it be true, is likely 
to get warped and twisted as it is handed down 
from generation to generation, and that the 



LOYALTY TO GOD'S WORD 17 

farther away you get from the original saying the 
more likely it is to be twisted and the less apt it 
is to be correct, and consequently, not the more, 
but the less venerable and reliable it becomes with 
age. 

Catholics say, also, that individuals have no 
right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, 
that the true interpretation can only be given by 
the Pope, and this comes down to the individual 
from the Pope through cardinal, archbishop, 
bishop and priest, and must be taken as they give 
it, not as the individual may understand it. 
When Martin Luther began his attacks on 
Catholicism, which resulted in the Reformation, 
the common people were not allowed to read the 
Bible at all. It was written in Latin, which few 
people then could read. Only a few copies were 
printed, and these were chained to a post in the 
church, to be looked at, but not read, by the 
people. Luther translated it into German, the 
language of the people in his country, and had 
numerous copies printed and put into the hands 
of as many people as possible. In this way the 
Reformation spread, and as we shall see later, in 
this way a great many Baptists were made. 

Protestants also are disposed to take their 
interpretation of the Bible from some one, Epis- 
copalians from their bishops and priests, Luther- 
ans from Luther, Presbyterians from John Cal- 
vin, Methodists from John Wesley, Disciples 



18 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

from Alexander Campbell, etc. The interpreta- 
tion given the Scriptures by these men is ex- 
pressed in their writings and embodied for the 
most part, except with the Disciples, in creeds 
and confessions which are regarded as authori- 
tative and which are the ultimate standards of 
appeal and the ultimate tests of orthodoxy among 
them. Not so with Baptists. Their appeal is 
not to any man or set of men, not to any creed or 
confession of faith, but to the Bible alone. They 
claim that each person has the right of access to 
it for himself and the right to interpret it for 
himself. 

But will not this individual interpretation re- 
sult in many different opinions about the Bible; 
as many, in fact, as there are individuals ? So it 
would seem. But as a matter of fact, such is not 
the case. On the contrary, strange as it may 
seem, it results in a remarkable similarity of 
agreement. What the Baptists insist on is sim- 
ply a plain, common-sense interpretation of the 
Bible, each passage to be taken in its natural, un- 
strained meaning, comparing Scripture with 
Scripture, interpreting each passage in the light 
of all. Rightly understood, there will be no dif- 
ference in the meaning of the various passages, 
no discrepancies, but only a beautiful, harmon- 
ious whole. 

The Baptist believes in the Average Man. He 
believes that this Average Man has as much sense 



LOYALTY TO GOD'S WORD 19 

as some one man, and certainly as much common 
' sense. He believes that this Average Man is 
as good as the Pope, that he has as much com- 
mon sense as the Pope, that he has as much right 
to interpret the Scripture as the Pope, and that 
he is more apt to interpret it correctly, because 
he is not bound by ecclesiastical ties or biased by 
prejudice. He is in position to let the Bible mean 
what it was intended to mean and what it wants 
to mean, no less, no more. With this composite 
opinion of the Average Man as the medium, and 
with the Holy Spirit as the guide, the interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures is very apt to be correct. 
At any rate, the Baptist is willing to trust such 
an interpretation. He is willing to put the Bible 
and the Bible alone into the hands of the people 
and let them read it and interpret it for them- 
selves. When they do, the Baptist believes they 
will be very apt to adopt the Baptist view and be- 
come Baptists. There have been some very strik- 
ing illustrations of this truth, in the cases of 
Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, Oncken in Ger- 
many, Baron Uixkull in Russia, F. M. lams, 
author of "Behind the Scenes," and many others. 
But is not such a principle a very dangerous 
one? Is it not entirely too indefinite, uncertain 
and precarious as the basis on which to found a 
religious denomination? Will it hold the mem- 
bers together? Is it not simply a "rope of sand?" 
So it may seem. But as a matter of fact, it holds 



20 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

them together. There may be differences on 
minor points. But on the great, broad, funda- 
mental principles of Christianity, the Baptists are 
thoroughly agreed. In fact, this "rope of sand" 
— the individual interpretation of the Bible — 
holds Baptists together much closer and stronger 
than other denominations are held by ecclesias- 
tical withes. A Pedobaptist said some time ago : 
"You Baptists have no ecclesiastical authority to 
bind you. You are held together by a rope of 
sand. But I believe you are more united than 
any of us." Even so. The reason is that Bap- 
tists are held together by natural, not artificial 
authority, by moral, not material ties, by spiritual, 
not physical cords, by principles, not persons. 
Their "rope of sand" is, in fact, the strongest 
rope that can be made. It never wears out. It 
only grows stronger as the ages roll by. That 
rope is the Bible. 

"In the judgment of men of other faiths, the most 
characteristic fact in the history of the Baptists during 
the last two centuries has been their marvelous con- 
tinuity of belief, their orthodoxy of doctrine. It is 
the wonder of many members of other churches having 
elaborate written standards, and an ingenious system 
of checks and devices to prevent and punish heresy, 
that a denomination without a creed, without a govern- 
ment, with no central authority or other human device 
for preserving unity, with each local organization a law 
unto itself and responsible to none save Christ — that 
such a rope of sand should hold together at all, much 



LOYALTY TO GOD's WORD 21 

less sustain a strain that the strongest bodies have 
borne none too well. But one cause can be plausibly 
assigned for this phenomenon, and that is, Baptist loy- 
alty to their fundamental principle, the word of God 
the only rule of faith and practice." (Vedder's History 
of the Baptists, page 223.) 

Andrew Jackson, the great President, on his 
death-bed, pointed to the Bible and said : 'That 
book is the rock on which our republic rests." In 
a higher and truer sense that book is the rock on 
which Baptists rest. As Sir Walter Scott lay 
dying, he suddenly raised up and said to his 
daughter : "Bring me the book." "What book, 
father?" she asked. He was one of the greatest 
writers in the world. He had many books of 
much value in his library. He was the author 
of numerous volumes, both in prose and poetry. 
And so his daughter, uncertain what book he 
meant, asked: "What book, father?" "The 
Book," he replied. "There is but one Book — the 
Bible." 

I, myself, have accumulated a considerable 
library, my son. Many of the best books pub- 
lished have been sent to me for review in the 
Baptist and Reflector during the twenty years I 
have been editor of it. You may have free access 
to all these at any time you wish. You will find 
a number of valuable books which I shall be glad 
to have you read, and hope you will read. Some 
of them you will probably fall heir to when I am 



22 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

gone. But there is one book, especially, I com- 
mend to you. I want you to read it, to study it. 
Make it the man of your counsel, the lamp to 
your feet, the light to your pathway, the store- 
house of your spiritual food. That Book is the 
Book of books — the Bible. Consult this freely. 
Keep the lamp trimmed, the light bright, go often 
to the storehouse. Follow where the Book lead's 
you. I do not want you to be a Baptist simply 
because I am a Baptist, but because the Bible, 
carefully read and prayerfully considered, makes 
you a Baptist, as I confidently believe it will. 

"Blessed Book, precious Book, 
On thy dear old tear-stained leaves I love to look. 
Thou art sweeter day by day, as I walk the narrow 

way 
That leads at last to that bright home above/' 

Hold on to this Bible, my boy. It is God's 
most precious gift to men, next to the gift of his 
own dear Son, of which this Bible tells us. I 
shall leave you something in the way of heritage, 
no money, little property, some books, as good 
an education as my purse will afford and you 
will take; an example, I hope, of uprightness, 
honesty and integrity; and I trust an honorable 
name. But the richest, dearest, most precious, 
most valuable legacy I can bequeath to you is 
this Bible. We have frequently read it together 
around the family altar. Read it for yourself. 
Love it. Live it. Follow it. 



LOYALTY TO GOD'S WORD 23 

CLING TO THE BIBLE, MY BOY. 

As your journey through life to the grave you pursue, 
There is one thing in earnest I wish you to do. 
O listen, my boy, while I say this to you : 
O cling to the Bible, my boy! 

You may meet with misfortunes and sorrows and 

tears, 
You may battle with sin and with Satan for years. 
Be a Christian! Press on! Do not have any fears, 
But cling to the Bible, my boy. 

Put your faith in our Father, and you will be strong; 
Keep your eye on the cross and you'll never go wrong; 
Sing the sweet songs of praise as you journey along, 
And cling to the Bible, my boy. 

Every time that you read it, you'll learn something new 
Of Jesus who died on the cross to save you. 
To the Lord, to yourself, and to heaven be true, 
And cling to the Bible, my boy. 

'Tis the anchor of hope and lamp that gives light, 
'Tis the star that will shine thro' your life's darkest 

night. 
If you follow its guidance you'll always be right. 
O cling to the Bible, my boy! 

Then cling to the Bible, my boy, 
O cling to the Bible, my boy! 
While living or dying, all else letting go, 
O cling to the Bible, my boy! 



LETTER NO. 2 



INDIVIDUALISM. 

My Dear Son : — I said there are two moral 
forces in the Universe — God and man, God in 
Heaven, man on earth. They are the two forces 
to be considered in religion. As we have seen, 
God has revealed himself to man in the Bible. 
As we have seen also, man is to take that Bible 
and read it for himself to find out God's will and 
purposes toward him. This puts the responsibil- 
ity for his salvation, for his character, upon the 
individual. It emphasizes and magnifies the in- 
dividual. God deals with men, not as a mass 
through some representative of the whole, such 
as Pope or priest, but with each man individually. 

Christianity is intensely individual. In the 
broad sense of the term it is the most democratic 
institution ever established. The only aristocracy 
in Christianity is an aristocracy founded on like- 
ness to the character of Christ. There is no 
aristocracy of money. Money cannot buy admis- 
sion into the kingdom of heaven. The golden 
gate does not turn on golden hinges. Listen: 
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the 
waters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, buy, 

(24) 



INDIVIDUALISM 25 

and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without 
money and without price" (Isaiah, 55:1). 
Again, in the last chapter of the Bible, John said : 
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And 
he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that 
is athirst, let him come ; he that will, let him take 
the water of life freely" (Rev. 22 : 17). There is 
no aristocracy of blood, so that the child of a 
pious parent will himself be pious because his 
father was, or so that the son of a wicked parent 
will necessarily be wicked because his father was. 
Those old Jews in the time of Ezekiel had that 
idea. They had been saying : "The fathers have 
eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are 
set on edge" (Ezekiel 18:2). But God said : "Be- 
hold, all souls are mine ; as the soul of the father, 
so also the soul of the son is mine : the soul that 
sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). 

I believe in heredity, in the influence of father 
upon son. But heredity is in a physical, perhaps 
also mental, not in a spiritual sense. I do not for- 
get the commandment which says : "For I Jeho- 
vah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the in- 
iquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the 
third and upon the fourth generation of them that 
hate me" (Ex. 20: 5). But that is in a physical, 
not a spiritual sense. Spiritually every man 
stands alone before God. Entering the kingdom 
of Heaven is not like an army entering a king- 
dom, a great many at a time. But it is like enter- 



26 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

ing the gates of an Exposition, the one, for in- 
stance, which was held in Nashville when you 
were quite small. Those gates would turn to ad- 
mit any number of people. They admitted about 
2,000,000 in Nashville, and about 20,000,000 in 
St. Louis. But they turned so as to admit only 
one at a time. Old John Bunyan was true to the 
Biblical instinct along here, as he always was, 
when in his Pilgrim's Progress he made the en- 
trance into the narrow way to heaven a wicket 
gate so small that only one could go in at a time. 
In a spiritual sense every man stands singly, indi- 
vidually, alone before God. "Every man must 
give account of himself to God" — not of another, 
not of another for himself, but of himself. In the 
kingdom of God, therefore, the individual is the 
unit. This is true with reference to his entering 
the kingdom, and is true also after he gets into 
it. Men are not saved as a mass, but as individ- 
uals. They are not dealt with, after they are 
saved, as a mass, but as individuals. "Know ye 
not that your bodies are members of Christ" (1 
Cor. 6: 16). "Know ye not that your body is a 
temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you?" (1 
Cor., 6: 19). 

Each body, each individual, is a member of 
Christ. His body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. 
"Every man shall receive his own reward accord- 
ing to his own labor." "Let every man take heed 
how he buildeth thereon." "The fire itself shall 



INDIVIDUALISM 



27 



try every man's work of what sort it is" ( I Cor. 
3^8, 10, 13). 

In a speech delivered in Nashville not long 
ago Mr. William J. Bryan, who is known as 'The 
Great Commoner," said : "J us t: as in matters of 
government there is an aristocratic view and a 
democratic view, so in the discussion of every 
question there is an aristocratic view and a demo- 
cratic view. The democrat believes that society 
is built from the bottom; the aristocrat believes 
that society is suspended from the top. The 
democrat says legislate for all the people, and 
their prosperity will find its way up through the 
classes that rest upon the masses. But the aristo- 
crat says, legislate for the well-to-do, and their 
prosperity will leak through on those below. It 
is purely a difference in the point of view. You 
cannot make a man admit that he is an aristocrat. 
He will not do it. He will deny it. You will 
have to go and prove it on him. And the way to 
prove it is just to ask him a question. Tell him 
the Bible story of Lazarus and Dives, how Laza- 
rus ate the crumbs that fell from Dives' table, and 
ask him what he thinks about it, and if he is a 
democrat, he says, 'It is too bad th^t we have 
people like Lazarus who live on crumbs/ and then 
he will organize an Old Hickory Club and dis- 
cuss it, and see if it is not possible to increase the 
number of tables so that every man will have a 
table of his own, and no man will have to live on 



28 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

the crumbs that fall from another man's table. 
But if he is an aristocrat, what will he say? He 
says, 'It is a lucky thing for Lazarus that there 
was a Dives near.' " 

Leaving out any political flavor which may at- 
tach to the above remarks — though I should say 
that Mr. Bryan did not use the word "democrat" 
in this particular connection in a political sense — 
these remarks exactly apply to America. Every 
American is essentially a democrat, in the broad 
sense of the term. Our republic is founded on 
democratic ideas — that is, upon the rule of the 
people, upon the individual. The Declaration of 
Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, says 
that "All men are created equal" — not equal 
physically, or mentally, or socially, or financially, 
but equal before the law, with equal rights, equal 
privileges, equal opportunities, equal responsibil- 
ities. Or, to quote again from the Declaration 
of Independence, "that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that 
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit 
of Happiness." This is the American idea, the 
rights of the individual. American government,, 
American society, rest upon that basis. It is that 
idea, carried to the point of the development of 
the individual man physically, mentally and mor- 
ally, which has made America so great. The 
whole can be no greater than its parts. The 
greater each part, the greater will be the whole. 



INDIVIDUALISM 29 

This fact came out conspicuously in the war 
between the United States and Spain. That was 
not only a war between two nations. It was a 
war between the Old World and the New, be- 
tween mediaeval and modern ideas, between the 
fifteenth and the nineteenth century, between the 
classes and the masses, between patrician and 
plebeian, between aristocracy and democracy, be- 
tween authority and individuality. This differ- 
ence was marked in the naval battle of Santiago. 
The officers of the Spanish ships gave wine to 
their soldiers to stimulate them for the battle; 
and then were compelled to stand over them with 
drawn pistols to keep them at their post of duty. 
On the other hand, the American soldiers had 
all been thoroughly trained. Each had his part 
to perform. Each knew exactly what and where 
it was and how to do it. Each felt that the suc- 
cess of the battle depended on him. Each was 
eager for the battle. Each did his part and did 
his best. The result is known to the world. Peo- 
ple wondered why the Americans could make 
almost every shot count, while the Spanish could 
not hit anything. This explains it all. 

I have dwelt a little at length upon this matter 
because I wanted to impress upon you the Ameri- 
can principle of individualism. The special point 
I want to make is that this American principle of 
individualism is also a Baptist principle. The Bap- 
tist, like the American, puts emphasis on the indi- 



30 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

vidual. He stands for the rights, the privileges, 
the responsibilities, the largest liberties, the high- 
est development of the individual. 

Baptists and Catholics stand at opposite ex- 
tremes on this principle. To them we may apply 
the remarks of Mr. Bryan, putting the Catholic 
for the aristocrat, the Baptist for the democrat, 
and the church for society. The Baptist believes 
that the church is built from the bottom, the 
Catholic believes that the church is suspended 
from the top. The Baptist proposes to develop 
all the people, and their development will find its 
way up through the whole mass. But the Catholic 
says : "Develop the officials and their develop- 
ment will leak through on those below." The 
Baptist will organize a Baptist church and seek to 
provide a spiritual feast for every man. The 
Catholic will say that it is a lucky thing for the 
poor devil of a Lazarus, the common people, 
that there should be a Dives near in the shape 
of a priest. The Catholic begins at the top 
and comes down through Pope, Cardinal, Arch- 
bishop, Bishop and priest to the individual. 
The Baptist begins at the bottom, with the indi- 
vidual, and goes up. 

In fact, with the Baptists bottom is top and top 
is bottom. Not only responsibility, but authority, 
rests in the individual. Louis XIV of France, 
"The Grand Monarch," said: 'L'Etat— L'Etat 
c'est moi ." "The State— I am the State." But 



INDIVIDUALISM 



31 



when his successor, Louis XVI, attempting to 
carry out this idea, lost both his crown and his 
head at the hands of the infuriated people, it was 
found that the King of France was not the State 
after all, but the people were the State. And so 
the Pope can say, "I arti the church/' But as the 
progress of enlightenment continues and the 
spirit of individualism develops, and as he loses 
more and more his hold on people and on 
countries, as he has been doing, he will find that 
he is not the church after all. 

The Baptist, on the other hand, says with the 
Latin poet, Terence : "I am a man and consider 
no part of humanity foreign from me/' I am an 
individual man and as such feel a sympathy for 
every other individual man. There is no man 
so high I cannot, and no man so low I will not, 
reach out my hand to him and call him brother. 
The church of Christ is composed of these indi- 
vidual units. Each one is presumed to have been 
regenerated under the influence of the Spirit of 
God. Each one has professed to have repented 
of his sins and to have believed on Christ as his 
personal Saviour. Each one is understood to be 
a new creature in Christ Jesus and to have con- 
secrated his life to the service of his Master, 
ready to live for him or to die for him, as need 
may be. Each one has been baptized for him- 
self on the profession of his personal repentance 
for sin and faith in Christ. 



32 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

It is then on such a basis of individualism, re- 
generated, intelligent, consecrated individualism, 
that Baptist ecclesiastical society rests. Roman 
Catholics took as their model for church govern- 
ment the Roman Empire, which, as Dr. G. C. 
Lorimer says, "was a civil hierarchy in which 
government was everything and the governed 
next to nothing. The first and principal duty of 
the citizen was obedience to the State; and the 
prerogative of the State, which in the last analysis 
was the emperor, was to provide for the citizen. 
Hence, on the one hand, the self-immolation of 
the citizen; and on the other, the donations of 
oil, corn and wine on the part of the ruler. " Thus 
the Roman Catholics, to quote Dr. Lorimer again, 
"belittled the individual and assumed that priestly 
rulers were more responsible for his salvation 
than he was for his own. Imperial paternalism 
gave way to ecclesiastical paternalism, and the in- 
fantile condition of the race was perpetuated with 
the strong presumption fostered that it never 
was to end. Hence it was proclaimed, and is still 
proclaimed, that man's first duty is allegiance to 
the Church; and, as in the empire, the authority 
of the Church is resolved into the personal will of 
its earthly head; and to resist that will, to chal- 
lenge or debate it, and to hesitate if necessary to 
crucify intelligence, common sense, and even 
common morality, that it may be fulfilled, is to 
incur the major excommunication. Thus indi- 



INDIVIDUALISM 



33 



viduality in religion was necessarily suppressed 
and strangled by undue and unwarranted hier- 
archial supremacy." 

All other denominations follow more or less 
in the wake of the Roman Catholics in putting 
emphasis — or rather failing to put emphasis — on 
the individual. But Baptists take their model 
from the New Testament. Jesus regarded one 
soul as worth more than all the world. He 
preached two of his greatest sermons to single 
individuals, one to a man, another to a woman. 
He called individuals as his followers. He puts 
emphasis, honor, dignity, responsibiity, upon 
individuals. "He that believeth on the Son hath 
everlasting life" (John 3:36). "Each one of us 
shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. 
14:12). 

The idea of the Roman Empire, and also of 
Louis XIV, was that the State was all, the indi- 
vidual nothing, except as he derived importance 
from the State. The idea of Roman Catholics is 
that the church is all, the individual nothing, ex- 
cept as he derives importance from the church. 
The American idea is that in government the 
individual is all and the government nothing, ex- 
cept as it derives its just powers from the con- 
sent of the governed individuals. The idea of 
Baptists is that as between the individual and 
Christ, the individual is nothing, except as he 
derives his power from Christ through faith. 



34 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

But, under Christ, the individual is all and the 
church government is nothing, except as it de- 
rives its just powers from the consent of the indi- 
viduals associated together in church capacity. 

Dr. Thomas Armitage has well said that the 
primary idea of Baptists is "not to build up an 
ecclesiastical system, but to create high and 
manly Christian character. In other words, it 
is to create in each individual soul and life a 
legitimate independency of all men in matters of 
faith and practice Godward." According to Mr. 
James Bryce, quoted in McClure's Magazine, the 
salvation of the American system consists in the 
fact that, in the final resort, it is a government 
by public opinion. "Towering over presidents 
and State governors/' says Mr. Bryce, in "The 
American Commonwealth," "over Congress and 
State legislatures, over conventions and the vast 
machinery of party, public opinion stands out, in 
the United States, as the great source of power, 
the master of servants who tremble before 
it. . . It grows up, not in Congress, not in 
State legislatures, not in those great conventions 
which frame platforms and choose candidates, 
but at large among the people. It is expressed 
in voices everywhere. It rules as a pervading 
and impalpable power, like the ether which 
passes through all things. It binds all the parts 
of the complicated system together, and gives 



INDIVIDUALISM 35 

them whatever unity of aim and action they pos- 
sess." This is American individualism. And 
it is precisely Baptist individualism. 

The fundamental American idea, then, is very 
close akin to the fundamental Baptist idea. In 
fact, I think they were both derived from the 
same source — the Bible — the Baptist idea directly, 
the American idea indirectly. It seems to me, 
therefore, that all Americans ought to be Bap- 
tists, and I cannot understand why they are not. 
I am glad to know, though, that more and more 
of them are coming to be Baptists. America is 
the most congenial soil in all the world for Bap- 
tists. There are more of them here, and their 
growth has been more rapid than in any other 
country on the globe. In 1800 the number of 
Baptists was about one to fifty of the population 
of the country. In 1900 it was one to eighteen. 
Now it is one to seventeen. You will live to see 
the number one to twelve. God hasten the day 
when all Americans will be Baptists. It will be 
only the union of congenial spirits, both actuated 
by the same important fundamental principle of 
individualism. 



LETTER NO. 3 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

My Dear Son : — It follows logically and nat- 
urally from the principle of individualism, which 
I discussed in my last letter — which was that 
every man has the right to worship God according 
to the dictates of his own conscience — that no 
man, no set of men, no government, religious or 
civil, has the right to prescribe how a person 
shall worship God, and proscribe and punish 
him if he does not worship that way. We must 
worship God according to the dictates of our 
own conscience, and not according to the dictates 
of another's conscience. There is no such thing 
as religions toleration. Religious toleration im- 
plies that one person had the right and the 
authority to forbid another to worship God as he 
chooses, but graciously agreed to permit him to 
do so. But religious liberty means that each per- 
son has the right to worship God as he wishes. 
If religion be a spiritual matter, if it be in the 
heart, there must necessarily be religious liberty. 
You can prevent a person from going through 
certain forms and ceremonies, but you cannot 
prevent the thoughts and feelings of his heart. 

(36) 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 37 

And, really, unless one worships God according 
to the dictates of his heart, he will not worship 
him at all. The only religion is the religion of 
the heart. That is the only religion which has 
any meaning in it. "You may lead the horse to 
water, but you can't make him drink" — unless 
there is something on the inside which inclines 
him to do so. You may compel a person to go 
through forms and ceremonies and genuflexions 
(bending of knees), but you can't make him wor- 
ship unless his heart so inclines him. The Italian 
philosopher, Galileo, announced his discovery that 
the earth moves around the sun. Up to that 
time it had been thought that the sun moved 
around the earth. He was arrested and made to 
recant. But as he arose, he said under his breath, 
"II pent si meuve" ("It moves for all that"). 
And so you may make a person go through cer- 
tain forms of worship, but if his heart is not in 
them it will do no good. A union of hands and 
not of hearts is no true marriage. 

Religious persecutions have been due to the 
fact that those who engaged in them had forgot- 
ten the great fact that religion is a spiritual matter 
and cannot be forced. They tried to compel an 
external worship, forgetting that religion is essen- 
tially internal. It is said sometimes that while 
Baptists have not persecuted others, the reason is 
because they have never had the power, but give 
them the power and they will persecute others, as 



38 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

well as Catholics or any other denomination. But 
as a matter of principle, Baptists cannot perse- 
cute. The moment they should attempt to do so 
that moment they would cease to be Baptists, 
for that moment they would depart from their 
fundamental principles of individualism, religious 
liberty, and a spiritual religion. 

This has been the position of Baptists all down 
the ages. They have stood for it consistently. 
Wherever you find Baptists you find them con- 
tending for that principle — contending for it oft- 
times even to death. Their contention was not 
simply that they should have the right to w r orship 
God as they pleased, but that all men should, not 
for liberty of conscience for themselves, but for 
all. 

You ask, do not all denominations believe in 
this freedom of conscience ? Well, most of them 
do now. But they did not always. These denom^ 
inations came into existence largely at the time of 
the Reformation under Martin Luther, beginning 
in 1 52 1. About that time the Lutherans, with 
Luther as their founder; the Presbyterians, with 
John Calvin as their founder ; the Episcopalians, 
with Henry VIII as their founder, sprang into 
existence. The Methodists, with John Wesley 
as their founder, the Cumberland Presbyterians, 
and the Disciples, or Campbellites, came later. 
All of these first-named denominations would not 
allow freedom of worship. They never got far 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 



39 



enough away from Rome for that. Roman 
Catholicism has always persecuted when it had 
the power, and always will, simply because it is 
an external religion, a religion of forms and cere- 
monies and not a spiritual religion, a religion of 
the heart. It thinks, therefore, that when it 
compels a person to go through certain prescribed 
forms and ceremonies it is leading him to worhsip 
God ; and, according to its way of thinking, caus- 
ing him to worship aright. It does not, and it 
seems cannot, understand that the mere observance 
of forms and ceremonies is not, cannot be religion 
— that true religion is on the inside, not the out- 
side; that its essence is in the heart, not in the 
act. The most that Catholics have ever done 
was to favor religious toleration, as they did in 
Maryland under Lord Baltimore. But, as I have 
shown, this is very different from religious lib- 
erty. And, besides, even this much is very 
unusual for Catholics. 

Nor did the Reformers, such as Luther in 
Germany, Calvin and Zwingli in Switzerland, 
Cranmer and Latimer in England, and Knox in 
Scotland, favor either religious liberty or religious 
toleration. They "all refused fellowship to any 
who differed from them about a syllable in the 
creed, or the version of a psalm, the fashion of a 
surplice, or the shape of a cap. Such differences 
provoked denunciation, and the denounced were 
persecuted and punished wherever perverted con- 



40 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

science could control legislation." The same 
writer says : "Liberty of conscience — the funda- 
mental, underlying principle of forbearance and 
fellowship and brotherly love — was not accepted 
nor apprehended by any of the leaders of the 
reformed churches. It found expression and 
defense nowhere on this earth save in these perse- 
cuted, scattered communities — the Baptized 
churches of Christ." 

This fact has come to be recognized by others 
beside Baptists. Here is the testimony of prom- 
inent and impartial historians and philosophers : 
When John Locke, one of the most profound 
philosophers of the age, and the famous author of 
the "Essay on the Human Understanding" and 
many other treatises, several on religious tolera- 
tion, was complimented by Chancellor King for 
his work on Religious Freedom, he magnan- 
imously replied : "The Baptists were the first and 
only propounders of absolute liberty, just and 
true liberty, equal and impartial liberty." 

George Gottfried Gervinus, a German re- 
nowned for his learned historical work in eight 
volumes — "A History of the Nineteenth Cen- 
tury" — writing of Rhode Island, says : "Here, in 
a little State, the fundamental principles of polit- 
ical and ecclesiastical liberty practically prevailed 
before they were even taught in any of the schools 
of philosophy in Europe." Rhode Island was 
founded by a Baptist, as we shall see later — 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 41 

Roger Williams, who had been driven from Mas- 
sachusetts because he advocated the doctrine of 
religious liberty. 

Herbert S. Skeats, who has written a "History 
of the Free Churches of England/' and who takes 
the precaution to inform us that he "is not con- 
nected with the Baptist denomination," writes : 
"It is the singular and distinguished honor of the 
Baptists to have repudiated, from their earliest 
history, all coercive power over the consciences of 
men with reference to religion. No sentence can 
be found in all their writings inconsistent with 
these principles of Christian liberty and willing- 
hood which are now equally dear to all the free 
Congregational churches of England. They 
were the Proto-evangelists of the voluntary 
principle." 

Judge Story, for thirty-four years one of the 
ablest justices of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, says : "In the code of laws established by 
them (the Baptists) in Rhode Island, we read, for 
the first time since Christianity ascended the 
throne of the Caesars, the declaration that con- 
science should be free, and that men should not 
be punished for worshiping God in the way they 
were persuaded he requires." And our own 
national historian, Bancroft, says : "Freedom of 
conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from 
the first the trophy of the Baptists.'' 

These are certainly splendid tributes paid to 



42 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

the Baptists by these distinguished men. Are 
they deserved? Let us see. Here are some 
facts of history which will be of interest to you 
and to others : Balthazar Hubmaier was a Re- 
former who lived at the same time with Luther, 
Calvin, Zwingli, and others. He was highly 
educated and was called by John Eck, a prominent 
Reformer, "the most eloquent man in Europe. " 
He belonged to what were called the Anabaptists. 
These were the progenitors or predecessors of 
the Baptists, and were called Anabaptists, because 
they would rebaptize, or baptize again, those who 
had not been baptized on the profession of a per- 
sonal faith in Christ. At the time Hubmaier 
lived it was the custom of all denominations — 
Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episco- 
palians — to burn at the stake all who did not 
agree with them, if they could get hold of them. 
The Anabaptists seemed to be the special mark 
of all. They suffered greatly, many of them 
being burned. So common had this custom be- 
come, and so horrible did it seem to a man like 
him, that Hubmaier wrote a book on "Heretics 
and Those Who Burn Them/' in which he said: 
"Those who are heretics one should overcome 
with holy knowledge, not angrily but softly. . . . 
If they will not be taught by strong proofs, or 
evangelical reasons, let them be made, that those 
that are filthy may be more filthy still. . 
This is the will of Christ, who said, 'Let both 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 



43 



grow together till the harvest, lest while ye gather 
up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them. 1 
. Hence it follows that the inquisitors are 
the greatest heretics of all, since they against 
the doctrine and example of Christ condemn 
heretics to fire, and before the time of harvest 
root up the wheat with the tares. . . . And 
now it is clear to every one, even the blind, that 
a law to burn heretics is an invention of the devil. 
Truth is immortal/' These are brave, noble 
words. They were written before Hubmaier 
had fully identified himself with the Anabaptists. 
It seems a strange fate that one who wrote such 
words should himself be burned at the stake, as 
he was later. Speaking of Hubmaier's time, Dr. 
H. C. Vedder says in his "Short History of the 
Baptists :" 'The Anabaptists of this period were 
the only men of their time who had grasped the 
principle of civil and religious liberty. That men 
ought not to be persecuted on account of their 
religious beliefs was a necessary corollary from 
their idea of the nature of the church. A spirit- 
ual body, consisting only of the regenerate, could 
not seek to add to itself by force those who were 
unregenerate. No Anabaptist could become a 
persecutor without first surrendering this funda- 
mental conviction; and though a few of them 
appear to have done this, they ceased to be prop- 
erly classed as Anabaptists the moment they 



44 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

forgot the saying of Christ, 'My kingdom is not 
of this world/ " 

In 1575 Hendrik Terwoort was burned at the 
stake for rejecting infant baptism. A confession 
of faith that he penned while in prison contains 
the first declaration in favor of complete religious 
liberty made on English soil : "Observe well the 
command of God : 'Thou shalt love the stranger 
as thyself.' Should he then who is in misery, 
and dwelling in a strange land, be driven thence 
with his companions, to their great damage ? Of 
this Christ speaks, 'Whatsoever ye would that 
men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for 
this is the law and the prophets.' Oh, that they 
would deal with us according to natural reason- 
ableness, and evangelical truth, of which our per- 
secutors so highly boast ! For Christ and his dis- 
ciples persecuted no one; on the contrary, Jesus 
hath thus taught, 'Love your enemies, bless them 
that curse you/ etc. This doctrine Christ left 
behind with his apostles, as they testify. Thus 
Paul, 'Unto this present hour we both hunger, 
and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and 
have no certain dwelling place ; and labor, work- 
ing with our own hands : being reviled, we bless ; 
being persecuted, we suffer it/ From all this it 
is clear that those who have the one true gospel 
doctrine and faith will persecute no one, but will 
themselves be persecuted." 

In 1659 Dr. Some, a man of standing in the 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 



45 



English Church, wrote A Godly Treatise, in 
which he charged the Anabaptists with holding 
the following "deadly errors :" 

"That the ministers of the gospel ought to be 
maintained by the voluntary contributions of the 
people ; 

That the civil power has no right to make and 
impose ecclesiastical laws ; 

"That people ought to have the right of choos- 
ing their own ministers ; 

"That the high commission court was an anti- 
Christian usurpation ; 

"That those who are qualified to preach ought 
not to be hindered by the civil power/' etc. 

During the reign of James I in England, in 
1612, "Edward Wightman rejected infant bap- 
tism, and was burned as a heretic. He was the 
last person who suffered capital punishment in 
England for his religious opinions/' John 
Smyth, in his famous confession, written a year 
before Wightman's deatfi, declares that "the 
magistrate is not to meddle with religion or mat- 
ters of conscience,, nor to compel men to this or 
that form of religion, because Christ is the King 
and Lawgiver of the conscience." In 1614, 
Leonard Busher wrote a noble work, entitled 
"Religious Peace ; or, A Plea for Liberty of Con- 
science." In it he pleads for the rights of Jews 
and Romanists, not only to speak, but to write 
and to print any views of religion for which scrip- 



46 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



tural authority may be claimed. "It is not only 
unmerciful, but unnatural and abominable — yea. 
monstrous — for one Christian to vex and destroy 
another for difference and questions of religion." 
The Confession of Faith adopted by the Eng- 
lish Baptists in 1644, contains, says Dr. Yedder, 
"the first publication of the doctrine of freedom 
of conscience in an official document representing 
a body of associated churches." It is as follows : 

"XLVIII. — A civil magistracy is an ordinance of 
God. set up by him for the punishment of evildoers, 
and for the praise of them that do well ; and that in 
all lawful things, commanded by them, subjection ought 
to be given by us in the Lord, not only for the wrath, 
but for conscience' sake ; and that we are to make sup- 
plications and prayers for kings, and all that are in au- 
thority, that under them we may live a quiet and peace- 
able life in all godliness and honesty. 

"The supreme magistracy of this kingdom we ac- 
knowledge to be King and Parliament. . . . And 
concerning the worship of God : there is but one law- 
giver, . . . which is Jesus Christ. . . . So it is 
the magistrate's duty to tender the liberty of men's 
consciences, Eccles. 8: 8 (which is the tenderest thing 
unto all conscientious men, and most dear unto them, 
and without which all other liberties will not be worth 
the naming, much less the enjoying), and to protect 
all under them from all wrong, injury, oppression, and 
molestation. . . . And as we cannot do anything 
contrary to our understandings and consciences, so 
neither can we forbear the doing of that which our 
understandings and consciences bind us to do. And if 
the magistrates should require us to do otherwise, we 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 



47 



are to yield our persons in a passive way to their 
power, as the saints of old have done. James 5 : 4." 

Commenting on this article of faith, Dr. Ved- 
der says : "This is a great landmark, not only of 
Baptists, but of the progress of enlightened Chris- 
tianity. Those who published to the world this 
teaching, then deemed revolutionary and danger- 
ous, held, in all but a few points of small impor- 
tance, precisely those views of Christian truth 
that are held by Baptists today. For substance 
of doctrine, any of us might subscribe to it with- 
out a moment's hesitation. On the strength of 
this one fact, Baptists might fairly claim that, 
whatever might have been said by isolated indi- 
viduals before, they were the pioneer body among 
modern Christian denominations to advocate the 
right of all men to worship God, each according 
to the dictates of his own conscience, without let 
or hindrance from any earthly power/' 

Oliver Cromwell was not a Baptist. He came 
nearer, however, "than any man of his time in 
public life to the adoption of the Baptist doctrine 
of equal liberty of conscience for all men. He 
came, at least, to hold that a toleration of all relig- 
ious views — such as existed among Protestants, 
that is to say — was both right and expedient; 
though he seems to have had no insuperable 
objections to a Presbyterian, or Independent 
Church established by law and maintained bv the 



48 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

State." The Presbyterians were the dominant 
denomination in England in the time of Cromwell. 
They protested vigorously against a general tol- 
eration. Thomas Edwards declared that "Could 
the devil effect a toleration, he would think he had 
gained well by the Reformation, and made a good 
exchange of the hierarchy to have a toleration for 
it." Even the saintly Baxter said, "I abhor un- 
limited liberty and toleration of all, and think 
myself easily able to prove the wickedness of it." 
John Milton, the blind poet, author of the im- 
mortal epic, Paradise Lost, was essentially a 
Baptist. Incensed by such teachings and by 
attempts in Parliament, then controlled by the 
Presbyterians, he broke "forth in his memorable 
protest, moved by a righteous indignation that 
could not find expression in honeyed words or 
courteous phrases :" 

"Dare ye for this adjure the civil sword 
To force our consciences, that Christ set free, 
And ride us with a classic hierarchy ?" 

And with bitter truth he added : 

"New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large." 

Again he wrote : 

"Peace hath her victories 
No less renowned than war; new foes arise, 
Threat'ning to bind our souls with secular chains; 
Help us to save free conscience from the paw 
Of hireling wolves, whose gospel is their maw." 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 49 

In 1689, under William III, an Act of Tolera- 
tion was passed, "'which, though a mass of absurd- 
ities and inconsistencies when carefully analyzed, 
was yet a measure of practical justice to the 
majority, and of great relief to all. Even then 
Papists and Jews were exempted from its pro- 
visions, and men so enlightened and liberal- 
minded as Tillotson and Locke protested against 
granting toleration to them. But from that day 
the grosser forms of persecution ceased forever 
as regarded all Protestant bodies, though the 
principle of complete religious liberty has never 
yet found general acceptance in England." This 
is shown by the fact that only recently the leaders 
of the Established Church, or Church of England, 
or Episcopalians, as we call them, secured the 
passage of a law requiring that the doctrines of 
the Church of England should be taught in the 
public schools, to support which schools every one 
of all denominations is taxed. This was regarded 
as so unjust that it caused a vigorous revolt, which 
was called the Passive Resistance Movement. 
That is, those who joined in the movement 
refused to pay the taxes, or rates, as they are 
called there, imposed on them, and passively, 
quietly allowed their goods to be sold by the 
officers of the law before they would pay. This 
movement was supported by all the Nonconform- 
ist denominations, notably the Baptists. It was 
led by a Baptist, Dr. John Clifford. 



50 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

America is known as the Land of Liberty. It 
v/as from the first the Land of Civil Liberty, but 
not for many years was it the land of Religious 
Liberty, and then it was through the influence of 
Baptists that it became such. Some one said 
that the Puritans came to this country to worship 
God according to the dictates of their conscience 
— and to make every one else do the same. 

When, therefore, Roger Williams, who was 
an Englishman by birth, a graduate of Cambridge 
L T niversity, but who came to this country when 
about thirty years of age (in 1630), and who 
caught the true American spirit, taught while 
pastor of a church in Salem, Mass., that "the civil 
magistrate's power extends only to the bodies and 
goods and outward state of man," he was banished 
from the Massachusetts colony. He made his 
way tp Narragansett Bay, founded a town, which 
he called Providence, in recognition of God's pro- 
tecting care, and established a colony, whose cor- 
ner-stone was "the principle of religious liberty." 
The written compact entered into by the first set- 
tlers of Rhode Island reads : "We whose names 
are hereunder written, being desirous to inhabit in 
the town of Providence, do promise to submit 
ourselves in active and passive obedience to all 
such order or agencies as shall be made for the 
public good of the body in an orderly way, by the 
major consent of the present inhabitants, masters 
of families, incorporated together into a township, 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 51 

and such others whom they shall admit into the 
same, only in civil things." 

Dr. H. C. Vedder says : k( A few other countries 
had before this, and for periods more or less brief, 
tolerated what they regarded as heresy ; this was 
the first government organized on the principle 
of absolute liberty to all, in matters of belief and 
practice, that did not conflict with the peace and 
order of the society, or with ordinary good 
morals. And though this government was insig- 
nificant in point of numbers and power, it was the 
pioneer in a great revolution, its principle having 
since become the fundamental law of every Amer- 
ican State, and influenced strongly even the most 
conservative European States. Though he did 
not originate the idea of soul-liberty, it was given 
to Roger Williams, in the providence of God, to 
be its standard-bearer in a new world, where it 
should have full opportunity to work itself out, 
and afford by its fruits a demonstration that it 
is of God and not of man." Roger Williams was 
not at first a Baptist, but finding that he uncon- 
sciously embraced Baptist principles, he founded 
what is usually regarded as the first Baptist 
church in America, at Providence, though many 
think that honor belongs to Dr. John Clarke in 
founding the Baptist church at Newport, Rhode 
Island. 

The first president of Harvard College, which 
was the first college founded in America, was a 



52 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



Baptist, Henry Dunster. Dr. Vedder says of 
him : "For preaching against infant baptism, this 
learned, godly and zealous man was indicted by 
the grand jury, condemned to suffer a public ad- 
monition, and placed under bonds for good be- 
havior, finally being compelled to resign the 
presidency of the college, of which he had been 
the greatest benefactor. Shortly after he was 
arraigned for refusing to have his child baptized, 
but was saved from further persecution by death." 
Dr. Clarke also suffered for his Baptist convic- 
tions. While he and Obadiah Holmes were 
spending the Sabbath with a brother who lived 
near Lynn, Mass., they concluded to have serv- 
ices. Dr. Clarke was preaching from Rev. 3 : 10. 
Two constables broke into the house, arrested 
them, and carried them before the Civil Court. 
"They," says Dr. Vedder, "were sentenced to 
pay, Clarke a fine of twenty pounds, and Holmes 
one of thirty pounds, in default of which they 
were to be 'well whipped.' A friend paid Clarke's 
fine, and he was set at liberty whether he would 
or no; but Holmes was 'whipped unmercifully' 
(the phrase is Bancroft's) in the streets of Bos- 
ton, for the atrocious crime of preaching the 
gospel and of adding thereto the denial of infant 
baptism." These and many similar instances are 
enough to make us cry out as Patrick Henry did 
one time. He was called on to defend three 
Baptist preachers in Virginia. On reading the 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 



53 



indictment setting forth that they were guilty of 
no less crime than that "of preaching the gospel 
of the Son of God," he cried out with suppressed 
indignation as he waved the paper thrice around 
his head, "Great God! Great God!! Great 
God ! ! !" 

But I have said enough to show you several 
things : 

1. Baptists have always stood for religious 
liberty — religious liberty, remember, not religious 
toleration, for freedom of conscience, for the 
right of every one to worship God according to 
the dictates of his own conscience, and not ac- 
cording to the dictates of the conscience of any 
one else. 

2. For this liberty they have contended, have 
suffered, have died. For it they now contend, 
and they would suffer and die, if need be. 

3. It is not simply liberty for themselves for 
which they contend, but liberty for every one. 

The truth is that for the very liberty of con- 
science they now enjoy, the people of America, 
of all denominations and all shades of belief, are 
indebted to the Baptists. In 1785, soon after the 
close of the Revolution, which was in Septem- 
ber, 1783, and two years before the framing of 
the Constitution of the United States, the Bap- 
tist General Committee of Virginia adopted the 
following resolution : 



54 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

"Resolved, That it is believed to be repugnant to 
the spirit of the gospel for the Legislature thus to pro- 
ceed in matters of religion (assessing citizens for the 
support of a State Church) ; that the holy Author of 
our religion needs no such compulsive measures for the 
promotion of His cause; that the gospel wants not the 
feeble arm of man for its support ; that it has made and 
will again through Divine power make its way against 
all opposition. And that should the Legislature as- 
sume the right of taxing -the people for the support of 
the gospel, it will be destructive to religious liberty/' 

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that 
it was on the petition of Baptists that the first 
Amendment to the Constitution was adopted. It 
reads : "Congress shall make no law respecting 
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom 
of speech or of the press ; or the right of the 
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
government for a redress of grievances. " This 
amendment was adopted in 1789. It was the 
result of an address to President Washington 
written for the Baptists by John Leland, the dis- 
tinguished Baptist preacher. The Amendment 
was introduced in Congress by James Madison, 
afterwards President, whose brother General 
Madison, was a Baptist. 

I repeat that for the very religious liberty 
which our brethren of other denominations enjoy 
they are indebted to the Baptists. And yet, some 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 55 

people are disposed to call the Baptists narrow 
and bigoted and exclusive ! They do not know 
what they are talking about. Never was greater 
injustice done any people. Baptists are the most 
liberal people in the world. The rights they 
claim for themselves they freely accord to others. 
They oppose persecution for themselves and they 
oppose it for others. They have ever been perse- 
cuted. They have never persecuted. If they 
should attempt to persecute others for their relig- 
ious opinions and worship, they would at once 
cease to be Baptists, for, as I have said, they 
would violate the fundamental Baptist principles 
of Individualism and Religious Liberty. 

I close this article with a quotation from Dr. 
J. L. Burrows on this point : "As a religious de- 
nomination, the Baptists have been, in all discus- 
sions on this theme, the most liberal and catholic 
in the world. They have contended for liberty 
of faith, not only for themselves, but for Roman- 
ists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Jews, 
Turks and Pagans, and all other peoples. And 
yet, forsooth, in these modern days, it has been 
proclaimed that the Baptists are an illiberal, ex- 
clusive, narrow sect! The Baptists exclusive! 
When the foundation principle of their whole 
church polity is liberty — the essentiality of vol- 
untary choice to right membership in the church 
of Christ. Exclusive! When every chapter in 



56 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

our history furnishes a brilliant record of heroic 
and suffering struggles for soul liberty in which 
other churches equally with ourselves should be 
sharers. Exclusive! When we never struck a 
blow at the shackles that galled our own limbs 
that did not fall with equal force upon the fetters 
that bound others. Exclusive ! Then the sun- 
shine and the showers that fall impartially upon 
all alike are exclusive !" This is finely and truly 
said. 



LETTER NO. 4 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

My Dear Son : — This principle follows logic- 
ally and naturally upon the principle of Religious 
Liberty, which I discussed in my last letter. 
It is a corollary to that. 

I have been speaking so far especially about 
individuals. But when a number of these indi- 
viduals are gathered together, there must be 
some form of government for them. 

Man has two natures, physical and spiritual. 
He is a creature of two worlds. , He has two lives, 
temporal and eternal, a life here and a life here- 
after. In accordance with his two natures, there 
are two governments for man, material and 
moral, secular and religious. The secular gov- 
ernment is represented by what we call the 
State. This is an association of men together 
for the mutual protection and advancement of 
their physical, mental, and moral interests. The 
religious government is represented by what we 
call the Church. This is a voluntary association 
of Christian men together for the mutual protec- 
tion and advancement of their spiritual interests. 
The State is incidentally concerned about the 

(57) 



58 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

spiritual interests of its citizens, but has no direct 
concern in or control over these spiritual inter- 
ests. The church is incidentally concerned about 
the physical and mental and moral interests of 
its members, but its special business is to care 
for their spiritual interests. In the State, govern- 
ment takes different forms, such as a monarchy, 
oligarchy, and republic. In the church it takes 
different forms, corresponding largely to those 
in the State government, such as the papacy, 
episcopacy and Congregationalism. 

Our Saviour recognized these two govern- 
ments of State and Church. One time while he 
was on earth there came to him a delegation 
composed of both Pharisees and Herodians. The 
Pharisees were the most religious sect among 
the Jews. They represented the Church. The 
Herodians were a political organization, follow- 
ers of King Herod. They represented the State. 
This delegation, composed of Pharisees and 
Herodians, asked him the question whether they 
should pay tribute to Caesar or not — that is, 
whether they should pay taxes to the secular gov- 
ernment. The Pharisees contended that Jews 
should not pay such taxes, because they were 
under a theocracy — that is, they were a favored 
nation directly under the rule of God, and should 
not recognize this secular government by paying 
taxes to it. The Herodians insisted, though, that 
it was proper to have a secular government ; that 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 



59 



at any rate, they had such a government ; and that 
they were under obligations to support it by their 
means. They cared little for religion. 

Here were two extreme representatives of the 
Church on one side, and of the State on the other 
side. Now, which was correct? Jesus saw that 
they were trying to catch him. He told them to 
bring him a denarius, a Roman coin worth about 
seventeen cents, and used in the payment of 
taxes. He asked them whose image and super- 
scription were on the coin. They told him, 
"Caesar's" — that is, the Roman Emperor's. He 
said to them, "Render unto Caesar the things that 
are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are 
God's." You say this is Caesar's image and 
superscription on the coin. This indicates that 
the coin belongs to Caesar. If he demands it 
back in taxes, pay them. The very fact that you 
use the money of the secular government shows 
that the secular government has claims upon you. 
Fulfill your obligations to that government. This 
much was said more especially for the benefit of 
the Pharisees. He then adds very emphatically 
for the Herodians — "And to God the things that 
are God's." Don't think that you have dis- 
charged all the obligations upon you when you 
have paid your taxes to the secular government. 
There is another government to which you owe 
obligations, the religious government, the gov- 
ernment of God. He has claims upon you, too, 



60 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

just as high and just as binding as those the sec- 
ular government has on you — nay, higher and 
more binding, as much higher and more binding 
as the spiritual nature of man is more important 
than the physical and mental. No wonder "they 
marvelled greatly at him/' He had in a moment 
answered their question, had completely turned 
the tables on both the Pharisees and the Hero- 
dians, and had laid down the broad principle that 
both the secular and the religious governments 
are to be recognized and that men are under 
obligations to both. 

Paul also taught the same things. He said : 
"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher 
powers : for there is no power but of God ; and 
the powers that be are ordained of God. There- 
fore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the 
ordinance of God ; and they that withstand shall 
receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are 
not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. 
And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? 
Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise 
from the same : for he is a minister of God to 
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, 
be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in vain : 
for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath 
to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs 
be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, 
but also for conscience' sake. For this cause 
ye pay tribute also ; for they are ministers of God's 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 



CI 



service, attending continually upon this very 
thing. Render to all their dues : tribute to whom 
tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear 
to whom fear; honor to whom honor" (Rom. 
13:1-7). With reference to the spiritual gov- 
ernment, the author of the Hebrews (probably 
Paul) said: "Remember them that had the rule 
over you, men that spake unto you the word of 
God ; and considering the issue of their life, imi- 
tate their faith" (Heb. 13 : 7). 

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and 
submit to them : for they watch in behalf of your 
souls, as they that shall give account ; that they 
may do this with joy, and not with grief : for this 
were unprofitable for you" (Hebrews 13: 17). 

There are, then, two governments, secular and 
religious, those of State and Church. Now the 
question comes, which is superior, the State or 
the Church? Shall the State be above the 
Church, or the Church above the State? As 
simple as this question may sound, it has been 
the cause of more contention, more strife and 
confusion and bloodshed than perhaps any other 
one question in the history of the world. 

Buckle in his "History of Civilization," says : 

"During almost a hundred and fifty years, Europe 
was afflicted by religious wars, religious massacres, 
and religious persecutions; not one of which would 
have arisen if the great truth had been recognized that 
the State has no concern with the opinions of men, and 



62 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

no right to interfere even in the slightest degree with 
the form of worship which they may choose to adopt. 
This principle was, however, formerly unknown, or at 
all events unheeded; and it was not until the middle 
of the seventeenth century that the great religious con- 
tests were brought to a final close and the different 
countries settled down to their public creeds.'' 

There are three theories about this question, 
the first two of which have been in eternal con- 
flict. 

i. The theory of the Herodians was that the 
State should be above the Church. This also 
was the theory of the Romans under the Empire. 
It is now the theory of Russia, Germany, Eng- 
land and some other European countries. Ac- 
cording to this theory the secular and religious 
governments go together, but with the secular 
superior to the religious and in control of the 
religious. In the countries where this theory 
prevails, they have established churches — that is, 
the church is established by law of the State. Its 
ministers are appointed by the State officials, and 
are paid by the State. The objections to this 
theory are: (i) It endorses the union between 
State and Church. (2) It puts the secular above 
the religious, the material above the moral, the 
physical above the spiritual. (3) It thus secu- 
larizes the church and makes it worldly. (4) 
This is all the more true because under this 
theory all citizens of the nation are members of 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 63 

the church, regardless of age or experience or 
character. Thus the good and the bad, the 
righteous and the unrighteous, are all mixed up 
together — preachers, pious men and women, 
saloonkeepers, gamblers, bad men and women 
of every description. How could you expect to 
see the development of the spiritual nature of 
its members in a church dominated by such secu- 
lar influences and ideals? No wonder in 
countries where this theory prevails infidelity 
abounds, drinking, gambling, vice and crime of 
every description are seen among the church 
members, and that the preachers are disposed 
to be a gay, fun-loving, fox-hunting, sycophantic 
set. The Lord deliver us from a State controlled 
church ! 

2. Another theory, and the opposite of the 
one just discussed, is that the Church is above 
the State. This was the theory of the Pharisees. 
It is the theory of the Roman Catholics, who are 
its most prominent advocates. According to this 
theory, the Church is superior to the State and 
should control the State. The State is simply the 
servant of the Church, to obey its behests and 
execute its commands. If a State official refuses 
to obey the voice of the Church, the Church au- 
thorities will "excommunicate" him — that is, they 
will not allow him to partake of the communion 
of the Church; they will deny all church 
privileges to him, and if he persists in his 



64 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

course, they will cut him off entirely; will 
not administer to him the "sacraments/' as they 
are called, of the Church, will compel him to live 
in exclusion from the Church and its followers, as 
far as possible, and when he dies will not permit 
his body to be buried in "consecrated ground" 
in the regular cemetery, but will require it to be 
buried, if buried at all, in some out-of-the-way 
place. You can easily see how such treatment 
would have a tremendous effect upon one who 
had believed in the Church and was under the 
spell of its influence and the minds of whose 
friends were under its domination. 

The most conspicuous instance of the work- 
ings of this theory was in the case of Henry IV 
of Germany. He offended Pope Gregory VII 
(better known as Hildebrand). On February 
22, 1076, the pope pronounced against him a 
sentence not only of excommunication, but of 
deposition as Emperor, releasing all Christians 
from allegiance to him. Some of his subjects 
told him that his sentence would be irrevocable, 
if he did not procure from the pope a release 
from his excommunication before the coming an- 
niversary of its pronunciation. This was in Jan- 
uary. Henry determined to see the pope in per- 
son and get him to recall the sentence of excom- 
munication. The weather was cold. The snow 
lay deep. There were no railroads. But on 
horseback, accompanied by his wife and child 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 65 

and a few attendants, he set out over the Alps. 
The pope heard of his coming, and to avoid see- 
ing him, took refuge in the strong fortress of 
Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the 
Apennine Mountains. Henry followed him -there, 
arriving January 21, 1077. The pope refused to 
see him. Friends interceded. The pope declined 
to remove the ban of excommunication unless 
Henry would surrender his crown to the pope. 
Henry went to the gate of the castle, and clad 
only in a coarse woolen skirt, stood barefooted 
from morning until night, knocking for admit- 
tance. This he did three days before he obtained 
an interview with the pope, who finally consented 
to release him from his sentence of excommuni- 
cation, but left the question of his crown to be 
settled later. No wonder Prince Bismarck, when 
Chancellor of Germany, once said in the Reich- 
stag, or German Parliament : "We will never go 
to Canossa again." But whenever any one recog- 
nizes the superiority of the Church over the State, 
he paves the way to Canossa, and sometimes he 
may be compelled to go all the way there, as 
Henry did. 

The objections to this theory are (1) Like 
the theory putting the State above the Church, 
it endorses the union between Church and State. 
(2) Like that, also, with such a union, it leads 
to a worldly church. (3) It puts the priests of 
the church beyond the pal£ of punishment for 



66 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



offenses by the secular powers, and so it makes 
of them a privileged class, which often causes 
them to become reckless, bold, dissolute. (4) It 
puts a tremendous weapon in the hands of men, 
who are not responsible to any earthly power, 
and which weapon is liable to make them despotic 
in the extreme, as we saw in the case of Pope 
Gregory VII. 

The above truths are illustrated also in the 
case of the Mormons, who hold to this theory of 
the Church above the State — or rather to the 
identity of Church and State, with the same offi- 
cers for both — what they call a church-kingdom. 
The effect was to make Joseph Smith a dissolute 
scoundrel, and Brigham Young a coarse tyrant, 
who had twenty-six wives, who could dance, and 
swear and lie, who accumulated $7,000,000 while 
president of the Mormon hierarchy, and who 
claimed that he had the right to dictate and con- 
trol everything, "even to the ribbons that a 
woman should wear, or to the setting up of a 
stocking." 

3. The third theory is, not that the State is 
above the Church, nor that the Church is above 
the State, but that State and Church should be 
separate in their governments, that, as with man 
and woman, neither has a sphere, but each has a 
hemisphere, that the State has its duties, and 
the Church has its duties, but that these duties 
are distinct and should not be confounded. In 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 67 

the secular realm the State is supreme; in the 
religious realm the Church is supreme. In ma- 
terial matters the State has the right to com- 
mand; in doctrinal matters the Church has the 
right to command. Each should respect the 
other. Each should cooperate with the other for 
the advancement of those under their mutual in- 
fluence. But neither should trespass upon the 
hemisphere of the other, and neither should usurp 
the prerogative of the other. The State has no 
right to dictate how a person shall worship, ex- 
cept as the question of morality and the well- 
being of its subjects may be involved, as in the 
case of polygamy. The Church has no right to 
dictate what kind of money shall be used. The 
State makes laws for the secular man; the 
Church, under God and in the light of God's 
word, for the religious man; the State for the 
outer, the Church for the inner man; the State 
for the body, the Church for the soul. On the 
moral side, the two realms border on each other, 
but still ever distinct. With the State, morality 
is demanded for the highest interests of its sub- 
jects. With the Church, morality is the out- 
growth, the expression of religion. With the 
State, morality is negative. It says, "Thou shalt 
not/' With the Church, morality is negative 
only incidentally, and positive essentially. It 
says, "Thou shalt not," but it says especially, 
"Thou shalt"— "Thou shalt love the Lord thy 



68 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

God with all thy heart and all thy soul, and all 
thy mind and all thy strength, and thy neighbor 
as thyself." This was the "whole law" of the 
church. 

Now this was the theory of Jesus on the sub- 
ject of Church and State, as opposed to the 
theory of the Herodians on the one hand and the 
Pharisees on the other. The Herodian said the 
State was above the Church, the Pharisee that 
the Church was above the State. Jesus said they 
were separate institutions, both of which should 
be recognized, both of which should be supported, 
but which should be kept distinct, "Render unto 
Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God 
the things that are God's." 

This is the theory of Baptists. Dr. Leonard 
Woolsey Bacon, in his "History of American 
Christianity" (page 221), says: 

"So far as "this was a work of intelligent conviction 
and religious faith, the chief honor of it must be given 
to the Baptists. Other sects, notably the Presbyte- 
rians, had been energetic and efficient in demanding 
their own liberties; the Friends and the Baptists agreed 
in demanding liberty of conscience and worship and 
equality before the law for all alike. But the active 
labor in this cause was mainly done by the Baptists. 
It is to their consistency and constancy in the warfare 
against the privileges of the powerful 'Standing Order' 
of New England, and for the moribund establishments 
of the South, that we are chiefly indebted for the final 
triumph in this country of that principle of the separa- 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 69 

tion of Church from State which is one of the largest 
contributions of the New World to civilization and to 
the church universal." 

Dr. Cathcart quotes Thomas Jefferson, who 
says : "There was a hope confidently cherished 
about A. D. 1780 that there might by a State 
Church throughout the United States, and this 
expectation was specially cherished by Episco- 
palians and Congregationalists." John Adams 
believed in leaving the matter to the States, each 
State having its own establishment. 

And so after hard work and numerous peti- 
tions the Baptists succeeded in securing the first 
amendment to the Federal Constitution, which I 
quoted in my last letter, and which says that 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an estab- 
lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer- 
cise thereof." And thus the principle of separa- 
tion of Church and State takes its place as a Bap- 
tist principle alongside the kindred principle of 
Religious Liberty. I close this letter with a 
quotation from Dr. J. B. Jeter: 

"Hierarchies — churches established by law, and sup- 
ported by civil, and, if necessary, military power — have 
been the greatest curse of Christendom. They are 
utterly at variance with the spirit and doctrine of Jesus. 
His kingdom is not of this world. He came, not to 
destroy men's lives, but to save their souls; and, to 
fulfill his mission, he employed, not swords and spears, 
but truth and wisdom and kind persuasion. He estab- 



70 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

lished no hierarchy, and gave no authority for its estab- 
lishment. The connection between Church and State 
is adulterous, and equally corrupting to the church and 
pernicious to the State. A hierarchy cannot be sup- 
ported without a hereditary membership, the oblitera- 
tion of the line of demarcation between the godly and 
the ungodly, and the limitation of discipline to dissent 
from the established faith and resistance to spiritual 
authority. As a matter of history, all hierarchies have 
been composed of the population in their respective ter- 
ritories, regardless of their moral qualities. In 
England, until quite recently, no man could hold office 
who was not a communicant in the Established 
church ; and it may be easily seen how strong was the 
temptation to hypocrisy and the profamation of the 
Lord's Supper among the aspirants for political and 
official preferment." 



LETTER NO. 5 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION. 

My Dear Son : — We have seen that Baptists 
believe in being loyal to the Bible as their only 
rule of faith and practice; in the rights and re- 
sponsibilities of the individual ; in the freedom of 
each person to worship God according to the dic- 
tates of his own conscience; in the separation of 
Church and State. Now, what kind of religion 
do they believe in and practice ? Let us see : 

There is one verse in the Bible which I believe 
comes nearer being the Baptist text than any 
other one — the text on which we may hang all 
of our denominational principles. It is this : 
"God is a Spirit ; and they that worship him must 
worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). This 
is the heart of the Bible, the root of religion, the 
soul of the gospel, the essence of Christianity. 

It was a new principle which Christ enun- 
ciated to the woman at the well, a new religion 
which through her he proclaimed to the world. 
The world was accustomed to a religion of forms 
and ceremonies. That was true with the heathen 
nations. Their religion, if such it could be called, 
was cold, formal, external, consisting of the ob- 

(71) 



72 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

servance of ceremonies, sacrifices, genuflexions 
and such like. 

It was true with the Greek and Roman relig- 
ions. The worship of the gods and goddesses 
was only a ceremonial, mechanical worship, if it 
might be dignified with the name worship. It 
was true with the Jews. Their religion ap- 
proached nearer a spiritual religion than that of 
other nations around them, but still it was a re- 
ligion of rites and ceremonies, of peace offerings, 
and sin offerings, and burnt offerings, and so 
on. These were types, symbols, shadows pre- 
saging the great offering which should be made 
on Calvary. They pointed forward to the day 
when there should be a pure, spiritual worship, 
the worship of God without the intervention of 
these rites. But types and symbols are neces- 
sarily material, and worship by means of them 
is more or less outward and mechanical. 

This was true with the Samaritans, to one of 
whom Jesus was speaking when he uttered our 
text. The Samaritans were a mixed race. After 
the Assyrian captivity a number of Assyrian men 
were sent back to Samaria. They intermarried 
with the Jews left behind. And so there sprang 
up a mongrel race, known as Samaritans. The 
Jews despised them, and they reciprocated the 
feeling. They would light false beacon fires to 
deceive the Jews. They refused to allow the 
Jews to pass through their country in going up 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION ?B 

to the feasts. They defiled the temple by scatter- 
ing bones in it. They welcomed Alexander the 
Great after he had plundered the temple. They 
established heathen forms of worship. They 
asked for a priest to teach them the old worship, 
and established a rival temple on Mount Gerizim, 
where they attempted to combine a formal rever- 
ence for God with heathen rites. 

It was in such an atmosphere that Jesus ut- 
tered our text. The question asked by the 
woman : "Our fathers worshipped in this moun- 
tain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place 
where men ought to worship" — which is right? 
(John 4:20) — was a burning question at that 
time. But Christ answered : "Woman, believe 
me, the hour cometh, when neither in this moun- 
tain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the 
Father. Ye worship that which ye know not : we 
worship that which we know; for salvation is 
from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now 
is, when the true worshipers shall worship the 
Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the 
Father seek to be his worshipers. God is a 
Spirit: and they that worship him must worship 
in spirit and truth" (John 4:21-24). 

It was, as I said, a new principle he enun- 
ciated, a new religion he proclaimed, a spiritual 
religion. The formal and ceremonial religion to 
which the Samaritans and Jews were accustomed 



74 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

was now past. A new and radically different 
rejigion had come to take its place. 

It is a fact worthy of note in passing, that two 
of the greatest utterances and profoundest truths 
which ever fell from the lips of Christ were 
spoken to individuals — to Nicodemus at night, 
the doctrine of regeneration, and to this woman 
at the well, the doctrine of a spiritual religion. 

There is a materialistic tendency in religion. 
A religion on the outside, a religion of ceremo- 
nies, is easy. You can see it. It is soon per- 
formed and over. It does not give much trouble. 
And so there is a tendency the world over to a 
ritualistic religion, a religion of outside works of 
some kind. That is true with the heathen today. 
They worship the sun and the moon, the cow, the 
snake, idols of wood and stone, with certain 
ceremonies, and think they have fulfilled their 
obligations. 

The Jews had their elaborate temple service, 
with all of its rites and offerings, and when they 
were observed they felt that their religious duties 
were discharged. Catholicism, like the religion 
of the Samaritans, is a mongrel religion. It is 
an attempt to combine the worship of the true 
God with the ceremonies to which the heathen 
were accustomed, so as to count them as Chris- 
tians. It says to the person that if he will take 
the "sacraments" and go through with certain 
forms at certain times, that is all that will be ex- 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION 



75 



pected of him. He may do what he pleases at 
other times, but will be safe because of his per- 
formance of these external duties. 

Episcopalianism is the daughter of Catholi- 
cism. The daughter is an improvement over the 
mother. . But there is a tendency among Episco- 
palians back to Catholicism, a tendency to ritual- 
ism in worship. This is the difference between 
high church and low church Episcopalians. The 
high churchmen are ritualists. They put the 
emphasis, like the Catholics, on the church, on 
the importance of rites and ceremonies, to which 
they attach a saving efficacy. The low church- 
men are evangelical. They believe in preaching 
the gospel. They think that salvation resides 
in faith in Christ, not in the ordinances of the 
church. Methodism is the daughter of Episco- 
palianism. As a rule, it resembles more the low 
church wing than the high church wing of the 
Episcopalians. But there is too much of a ritual- 
istic tendency even among Methodists. At any 
rate, there is too much of a tendency to make 
religion consist, if not of forms and ceremonies, 
at least of works, thus making it still an outside 
matter. With many Disciples, or Campbellites, 
it is entirely external, mechanical. They deny 
the operation of the Holy Spirit on the heart. 
They deny that there is such a thing as heartfelt 
religion. They make religion to consist in obe- 
dience, especially the obedience to one command. 



76 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

It is a cold, dry, formal, mechanical religion they 
teach. 

This formal religion suits the world. It does 
not know anything about heartfelt religion. It 
cannot appreciate the beauty and the power of 
an inward spiritual religion. And so it goes 
through ceremonies or performs works of various 
kinds and thinks that these things are religion. 

But I say with emphasis, this religion of cere- 
monies, this religion of works, this external, 
mechanical religion, is really no religion at all. 
Hear our text : "God is a Spirit : and they that 
worship him must worship in spirit and truth." 
There is no other way to worship him. He is 
not to be worshiped with these rites and cere- 
monies. They were given as types and shadows 
of the true religion to come. But when Christ, 
"the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of 
the world," was offered on Calvary, the types 
were done away with. When the veil of the 
temple was rent in twain it meant that there was 
no longer now any need for priests or high priest 
in our approach to God, but that each one could 
come for himself through the Great High Priest, 
Christ Jesus. It meant that religion was to be 
a matter, not of the nation, but of the individual, 
not of the outside, but of the inside, not of the 
body, but of the heart, not of forms, but of the 
spirit, not of works, but of faith. You may go 
through all the ceremonies of all the religions in 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION ?7 

the world, but unless the heart be in them they 
are of no use. And if the heart be in them, that 
is the essence of religion and you do not need 
the ceremonies for salvation. 

You may do everything required of you as 
far as you can, but if your works do not spring 
from your heart, and if they be not prompted by 
faith in God and love for him, they amount to 
nothing. It is all right to do works, but your 
works must be the stream flowing from the 
fountain of the heart, the effect, not the cause of 
religion. The fountain makes the stream, not 
the stream the fountain. To make the stream 
pure you must make the fountain pure. A clear 
fountain will send forth clear water, a muddy 
fountain, muddy water. 

Religion is that which binds us back to God. 
God is a spirit, not a body; immaterial, not ma- 
terial; and the only way we can come in contact 
with him, and so be bound back to him is in 
our spirits. In other words, religion is essen- 
tially, necessarily, a matter of the heart. It is 
on the inside of the person. Nothing else can 
be religion. These ceremonies, these works, as 
far as they are any part of religion at all, are 
only its consequences, its results, the stream flow- 
ing from the fountain, the shadow of the sub- 
stance, the fruit of the tree, whose roots are in 
the heart, in the soul of the person. The fruits 
don't make the tree. The tree makes the fruits. 



78 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him 
mast worship in spirit and truth/' It is impos-' 
sible to worship him any other way. A worship 
of the body and not of the heart is no worship 
at all. A religion of the outside and not of the 
spirit, is only a cold, formal, material, mechanical, 
perfunctory, ceremonial observance which can 
hardly be dignified by the term religion. True, 
genuine religion is that which is on the inside, 
filling the soul and overflowing in deeds of love 
to others, a spiritual religion. 

Christianity is a spiritual religion. That is 
shown in the text, "God is a Spirit, and they that 
worship him must worship in spirit and truth" 
(John 4:24). This was given to a woman, but 
it was intended to apply to the human race, like 
the kindred truth given to Nicodemus. It is 
shown from the character of God. Says the 
Psalmist: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? 
Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If 
I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: If I 
make my bed in Sheol, behold thou are there. If 
I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in 
the uttermost parts of the sea : Even there shall 
thy hand lead me. And thy right hand shall hold 
me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall over- 
whelm me, And the light about me shall be 
night : Even the darkness hideth not from thee. 
But the night shineth as the day: The darkness 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION 



79 



and the light are both alike to thee" (Ps. 139: 
7-12). 

The apostle said of him : 'The God that made 
the world and all things therein, he, being Lord 
of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples 
made with hands; neither is he served by men's 
hands,- as though he needed anything, seeing he 
himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all 
things" (Acts 17:24, 25). "For in him we 
live, and move, and have our being; as certain 
even of your own poets have said. For we are 
also his offspring" (Acts 17:28). 

It is shown from the nature of the kingdom 
which Christ came to establish upon the earth. 
The Jews, about the time of his appearance in 
the world, were expecting the Messiah to come 
and set up a grand temporal kingdom, with him- 
self as king, and which should subdue the other 
nations of the earth and especially the proud 
Roman Empire which now had its heel upon 
their necks. That he would not lend himself to 
this idea and allow himself to be proclaimed king, 
as they tried to do on one or two occasions, was a 
source both of disappointment and of offense to 
them. The Pharisees once asked him plainly, 
"when the kingdom of God cometh." Is this the 
time when it is to be established : Are you really 
the king who is to reign over that kingdom? 
But he replied by teaching them the spiritual 
nature of that kingdom. 'The kingdom of God 



80 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

cometh not with observation: neither shall they 
say, Lo, here ! or, There ! for lo, the kingdom of 
God is within you" (Luke 17:20, 21). The 
kingdom of God is not an outward, temporal 
thing that can be seen. It is of an inward, spirit- 
ual character. This truth he taught still more 
plainly just before his death, when he said to 
Pilate, in answer to Pilate's question, "Art thou 
the king of the Jews ?" "My kingdom is not of 
this world : if my kingdom were of this world, 
then would my servants fight, that I should not 
be delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom 
not from hence" (John 18:36). 

Even the disciples of Christ had the same 
opinion with the other Jews. They thought their 
Master was going to establish a temporal king- 
dom and they expected to be his chief subjects, 
with the apostles as his cabinet. They were woe- 
fully disappointed when he died without setting 
up his temporal kingdom. After his resurrec- 
tion their hopes were revived, and the very last 
question they asked him before his ascension 
was : "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the 
Kingdom to Israel ?" But his answer was : "It 
is not for you to know times or seasons, which 
the Father hath set within his own authority. 
But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit 
is come upon you : and ye shall be my witnesses 
both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION 



81 



and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 

1=7,8)- 

My Kingdom is not a temporal kingdom, as 

you seem to think, but a spiritual kingdom. The 
Holy Spirit shall rule in it. He will give you 
power, and you yourselves are to spread that 
kingdom and so help to establish it all over the 
world. 

The spirituality of the kingdom was also 
taught by Paul, when he said "For the kingdom 
of God is not eating and drinking, but righteous- 
ness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 

14: 17). 

This truth he emphasized: "For he is not a 
Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that cir- 
cumcision which is outward in the flesh : but he 
is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision 
is that of the heart, in the spirit; whose praise 
is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2 : 28, 29) . 

That religion is a spiritual matter; a matter 
of the heart, is taught in the following passages : 
"For Jehovah seeth not as man seeth; for man 
looketh on the outward appearance, but Jehovah 
looketh on the heart" (1 Sam. 16: 7). "For as 
he thinketh within himself, so is he" (Prov. 
23:7). In Jeremiah God said: "Behold, the 
days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a 
new covenant with the house of Israel, and with 
the house of Judah : not - according to the cove- 
nant that I made with their fathers in the day 



82 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

that I took them by the hand to bring them out 
of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they 
brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith 
Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will 
make with the house of Israel after those days, 
saith Jehovah : I will put my law in their inward 
parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I 
will be their God, and they shall be my people" 
(Jeremiah 31 : 31-33). Also in Ezekiel he says: 
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new 
spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away 
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give 
you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit 
within you, and cause you to walk in my 
statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and 
do them" (Ezekiel 36:26, 2j). 

These passages are predictions of the spiritual 
character of the religion afterwards to be estab- 
lished — a prediction little understood at the time, 
probably, but made very clear afterwards. David 
prayed, "Create in me a clean heart, O God ; And 
renew a right spirit within me" (Ps. 51:10). 
Jesus said : "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, 
being evil, speak good things? For out of the 
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The 
good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth 
good things; and the evil man out of his evil 
treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matthew 
12:34,35). Again, he said: "For out of the 
heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulter- 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION 



83 



ies, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings" 
(Matt. 15:19). We are told in Acts 16:14,- 
about Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened to 
give heed unto the things which were spoken by 
Paul ;" and Paul says, in Romans 10:10: "For 
with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; 
and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation. " Said the wise man: "Keep thy 
heart with, all diligence; For out of it are the 
issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). 

From all of these passages, and about a thou- 
sand others in which the word heart is used in the 
Bible, but which I cannot undertake to quote, it 
follows that religion is a matter of the heart — 
that in its very essence it is internal and spiritual, 
not external and physical. 

From this great truth it follows : 

That we may worship God anywhere Wor- 
ship means not the observance of ceremonies, but 
it means our spirits coming in contact with God's 
Spirit. The church is a convenient place to wor- 
ship God. But do not get the notion that you 
need to go to church to do so. You can worship 
him at home around the family altar, in your 
closet, in the store, in the office, in the woods, in 
the field, anywhere. 

At any time. The Jews would go to the tem- 
ple on stated occasions, many of them not oftener 
than once a year, to worship God. But this 
utterance of Christ broke down all barriers of 



84 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

time as well as place. It removed all limits to 
our worship of God. Henceforth there were 
to be no restrictions. Anyone might lift his heart 
in prayer to God anywhere, at any time. There 
are many now who seem to think that religion 
consists in going to church on Sunday morning. 
If they do that, they have discharged the full 
measure of their religious duty and they may do 
what they please the rest of the day and the rest 
of the week. I confess that I have little use for 
this Sunday religion, the religion that is put on 
with the Sunday clothes, and taken off with the 
Sunday clothes. I believe in an every-day relig- 
ion, a religion which is as good for Monday and 
Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday and Fri- 
day and Saturday as it is for Sunday, a religion 
which is good for every day in the week and 
every hour in the day. Others seem to think 
that they can worship God only at church. They 
never pray except at church. They imagine that 
the only time they can meet God is at church, 
that the Shekinah, the real presence, is there as it 
was in the Tabernacle- in the wilderness, and that 
it is only at the Sunday services they can wor- 
ship God. But this declaration shows that God 
is everywhere and that wherever we may be we 
can come in contact with him. 

Out of this doctrine of a Spiritual Religion 
there springs the principle of Voluntariness, 
which combines the two principles of Individual- 



A SPIRITUAL RELIGION 85 

ism and Religious Liberty about which we studied 
recently, and Regeneration before church member- 
ship, about which we shall study in our next 
letter. It follows from it also that repentance 
and faith are spiritual, that the essence of baptism 
is spiritual, that true obedience is in the heart, 
not in the act, that works can have no effect on 
the salvation of the soul, but are only the ex- 
pression of its salvation, that the communion has 
no reference to external circumstances, but sym- 
bolizes the relation of the soul to its Saviour, 
and that the worship of God must be of a spirit- 
ual nature, not elaborate, with forms and cere- 
monies and genuflexions and artistic music, but 
with songs and prayer and reading and sermon, 
all plain, all straightforward, a simple spiritual 
service. 



LETTER NO. 6 



REGENERATION. 

My Dear Son : — The atonement is what God 
through Christ has done for man. Regeneration 
is what God through Christ does in man. It is 
the application of the benefits of the atonement 
to man. It is a change of the dispositions of the 
soul wrought by the Holy Spirit through faith 
in Christ. 

Regeneration is a distinctive characteristic of 
Christianity. There is no other religion in the 
world which has any such principle in its system. 
The central feature of all others consists in the 
observance of forms and ceremonies, or at most 
in efforts at moral reformation. In either case it 
is a cold, mechanical, surface religion, physical 
and not spiritual. But the essential characteristic, 
the cardinal principle of Christianity, next to the 
divinity of Christ, together with his death and 
resurrection, is regeneration. This principle 
more than any other, so far as its effect upon man 
is concerned, differentiates Christianity from all 
other religions and puts it upon the plane of a 
spiritual and not a mere physical religion. 

Buddhism has its lord, Confucianism its mas- 

(86) 



REGENERATION 



87 



ter, Mohammedanism its prophet, and each of 
them its priests, its temples, its ceremonies and 
its rules of life. But none of them know any- 
thing about the change in the dispositions of the 
soul which must be the basal, fundamental fact 
in all true religion. The doctrine of the new 
birth announced by Christ to Nicodemus that 
night was a new teaching in the world. 

I said that regeneration is a distinctive charac- 
teristic of Christianity. May I add that it is a 
distinctive characteristic also of the denomination 
of Christians usually called Baptists? The time 
was, and that not so very long ago, when they 
alone of all denominations in the world stood for 
that principle in its essential, spiritual meaning. 
And while there are others who now claim to hold 
it, it is, I believe, through the leaven of Baptist 
influence that they have been led to adopt it. Be- 
sides, there is no denomination which holds to it 
so strictly and so consistently as do Baptists. 
With Catholics, with Episcopalians and with 
Lutherans it means the ceremonial observance of 
a physical ordinance as the medium of regenera- 
tion, and consequently in countries dominated by 
them we see the State church, of which all citizens 
who have been baptized — as all are expected to be 
in infancy — are members without regard to char- 
acter, and in which, as Prof. Tholuck said to 
Joseph Cook, they are "all mixed up pell-mell 
together." With Presbyterians and with Meth- 



88 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

odists there is a strong leaning toward the idea of 
baptismal regeneration, especially in their custom 
of baptizing infants, as is evident from their bap- 
tismal ceremonies. With Campbellites there is 
a distinct belief in baptismal regeneration, how- 
ever vehemently they may deny it or may attempt 
to explain it away. Alexander Campbell himself 
said that "regeneration is equivalent to immer- 
sion/' and through all the arguments of his fol- 
lowers you can see that idea prominent. 

And if any of these denominations do repudiate 
the theory of baptismal regeneration, the kind of 
regeneration in which they believe is too often a 
reformation instead of a regeneration proper, a 
change of actions, and not of the nature back of 
the actions. I do not mean to be narrow or big- 
oted, but I speak the cold facts of history when I 
say that Baptists are the only people who have 
ever made a spiritual regeneration their distin- 
guishing characteristic, their fundamental prin- 
ciple. This they have done all down the ages. 
Sometimes they have carried that principle 
through fire and blood, but ever and everywhere 
they have held aloft the banner with the noble 
inscription upon it, Regeneration before 
Church Membership. In the face sometimes 
of the bitterest persecution they have insisted that 
neither church membership, baptism, nor reforma- 
tion has any effect upon the salvation of the soul, 
but that before all these must come regeneration, 



REGENERATION 



89 



and that without it church membership is a mean- 
ingless form, due either to hypocrisy or self- 
deception, baptism is a hollow mockery and a lie, 
and reformation is but a temporary makeshift at 
best, even if it be not a sham and fraud. 

I say this is the theory of Baptists. It may 
not always be their practice. They may not 
always live up to their own teachings. Some- 
times the goats may slip in among the sheep, as 
did Simon Magus. Sometimes those who do not 
give evidence by the divine test of "By their 
fruits ye shall know them" that they have thus 
been born again under the influence of the Holy 
Spirit may be allowed to remain among their 
membership, for various reasons. But these 
facts are due to the weakness of human nature. 
We are dealing now with theories. The theory 
may be perfect and the practice imperfect. This 
is true with Christianity and Christians. The 
theory of Christianity is perfect, but Christians 
who try to practice it are often very imperfect. 
Other things being equal, however, the better the 
theory the better the practice. The higher the 
standard, the higher will be the attainment. The 
more perfect the ideal, the more perfect will be the 
real. At any rate, this regeneration is the corner- 
stone of Baptist principles, the bed-rock of their 
faith, as well as a characteristic of Christianity 
itself. If it be so important a matter then, let us 



90 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

consider it carefully in all of its relations as given 
us by inspiration, to find out all we can about it. 
I have but two general points to discuss : 

I. The necessity of regeneration. 

II. Its nature. 

I. The necessity of regeneration. "Ye must 
be born again" — not "ye ought to;" "ye must." 
It is an absolute necessity that ye should. 

i. This is seen in the nature of man. 

The sin of Adam corrupted the fountain of 
human nature, so that every one now born into the 
world comes with the dispositions of his soul 
turned away from goodness and God, and with a 
bias toward evil. Every fibre of his being is 
poisoned by sin, every faculty perverted so that in 
every impulse he is led to prefer self to God. 
Here is what the Scriptures say about it: "Be- 
hold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin 
did my mother conceive me" (Psa. 51 : 5). "As 
it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one ; 
there is none that understandeth, there is none 
that seeketh after God; they have all turned 
aside, they are together become unprofitable; 
there is none that doeth good, no, not so much as 
one : their throat is an open sepulchre ; with their 
tongues they have used deceit : the poison of asps 
is under their lips : whose mouth is full of cursing 



REGENERATION 



91 



and bitterness : their feet are swift to shed blood ; 
destruction and misery are in their ways ; and the 
ways of peace have they not known : there is no 
fear of God before their eyes. For all have 
sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 
3: 10-18, 23). "For I know that in me, that is, 
in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing : for to will is 
present with me, but to do that which is good is 
not" (Rom. 7 : 18). "For the mind of the flesh is 
death" (Rom. 8:6). "Because the mind of the 
flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject 
to the law of God, neither indeed can it be : and 
they that are in the flesh cannot please God" 
(Rom. 8 : 7, 8) . "Now the natural man receiveth 
not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are 
foolishness unto him ; and he cannot know them, 
because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2: 
14) . "And you did he make alive, when ye were 
dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye 
once walked according to the course of this world, 
according to the prince of the powers of the air, 
of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of dis- 
obedience ; among whom we also all once lived in 
the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh 
and of the mind, and were by nature children of 
wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2: 1-3). "That 
ye put away, as concerning your former manner 
of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the 
lusts of deceit" (Eph. 4: 22). Here, then, you 
have the man not only a sinner, but sinful; not 



92 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

only committing personal sins, but his whole 
nature corrupt, "shapen in iniquity/' "conceived 
in sin," "with no good thing dwelling in him," 
"carnally minded," instead of spiritually minded, 
"at enmity with God," "not subject to the law of 
God," neither can be subject to it in his present 
state, "by nature a child of wrath," "dead in tres- 
passes and sins." It is in these facts that the 
necessity for regeneration is found. 

What are you going to do with such a man as 
I have described, or, rather, whose description I 
have taken from the Scriptures ? 

(i) Leave him alone, upon the supposition 
that he is good enough? That is what Nico- 
demus seems to have thought. He was a ruler 
of the Jews, a member of the Sanhedrin, a pru- 
dent, cautious, moral man, with no outbreaking 
sins. On the contrary, he was, I presume, a 
Pharisee, and like the Pharisee in the temple, 
he could probably thank God that he was not as 
other men, "extortioners, unjust, adulterers;" he 
"fasted twice in the week, he gave tithes of all he 
possessed." He doubtless felt like congratulating 
himself upon his excellent character, and evidently 
thought that he was conferring a favor on Christ 
by visiting him at all. He was curious to see this 
new teacher, who was creating so great a sensa- 
tion in Jerusalem. But he did not care to com- 
promise the dignity of his position, and perhaps 
bring himself into unpleasant notoriety, by being 



REGENERATION 93 

seen talking with him in the day time. So he 
came at night to have a friendly chat with Christ, 
and find out more about him and these new doc- 
trines which he was teaching. He began by say- 
ing very politely and with a patronizing air, 
"Rabbi, we know that thou are a teacher come 
from God; for no one can do these signs that 
thou doest, except God be with him" (John 3:2). 
He made what some of our brethren call "the 
good confession," at least to the extent of acknowl- 
edging that Jesus was a teacher sent from God, 
if not that he was the Son of God. 

But the discerning eye of Christ penetrated 
beneath the vail of sophistry in which Nicodemus 
had unconsciously wrapped himself. He per- 
ceived his self-satisfied air, and saw that he was 
relying upon his morality. So at one blow he cut 
the Gordian knot. Looking Nicodemus full in 
the eye, he simply said : "Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Your morality 
is all right, Nicodemus, as far as it goes. But it 
does not go far enough. Your tithes and fastings 
and prayers and other good works are all right. 
But something more is required. Your good 
confession in acknowledging me to be a teacher 
sent from God is all right. But that does not 
touch the root of the matter. Back of all these, 
beneath all these, there is something else which 
goes deeper than any of these, and without which 



94 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

they will be of no avail in the kingdom of God 
which I have come to establish upon the earth, 
and which I know you have come to ask me about 
tonight. Unless you are born again you cannot 
see that kingdom. The first, the essential, the 
fundamental characteristic of that kingdom is that 
men and women must be born over again, must 
become new creatures before they can see it or 
enter it. That is the foundation stone, the bed- 
rock of the kingdom of God. 

Nicodemus was surprised, startled. He had 
not expected anything so personal, so direct. 
Here he had come in a sort of patronizing spirit 
to have a little talk with Christ, and he expected 
Christ to be as diplomatic as he was. But at the 
very first word Christ brushed aside all formalities 
as if he felt impatient at them and penetrated the 
very core of the subject, and at the same time of 
Nicodemus' heart, by brusquely telling him that 
in order to see this kingdom of God he must be 
born again, despite his present excellent charac- 
ter. The blow stunned Nicodemus, so sudden 
and unexpected was it. It almost took his breath 
away. In his surprise he either misunderstood 
Christ, or not knowing what to say afifected to 
misunderstand him, and replied, "Why, Rabbi, 
how can a man be born again when he is old? 
Can he enter the second time into his mother's 
womb and be born? That isn't possible." But 
the Saviour answered him by telling him that 



REGENERATION 95 

there were two births, one physical and the other 
spiritual, and unless a man had both the births he 
could not enter the kingdom of God. 

But he told Nicodemus not to be astonished at 
his saying "Ye must be born again." He might 
not be able to understand this spiritual birth. But 
it was like the wind; you hear the noise of the 
wind, but you can't see it ; you can't tell where it 
comes from or goes to. You can only tell it by 
its effects as it passes by you. That is the way it 
is with every one who is born of the Spirit. You 
can't perceive the manner of his birth, and you 
can't explain it. You can only tell it by its effects. 
I have thus dwelt at some little length upon the 
case of Nicodemus because it furnishes the best 
illustration to be found anywhere of the point 
under discussion — that is, the necessity of regen- 
eration for every man, no matter how great his 
morality, or how good his character. Nicode- 
mus presents as good an example as could well be 
found of a moral man, and if he needed to be born 
again, so do you, and so does every one. 

(2) There are some who admit that man is a 
sinner, but they say the thing to do is to reform 
him. Let him change his course of life. He has 
been doing bad. Let him now do good. He has 
been going the wrong way. Let him turn around 
and go the right way. Let him develop himself 
into the kingdom of God by a kind of process of 
evolution. To such I would reply : Evidently 



96 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

what is needed by the man I have described, or, 
rather, whose description I have copied from the 
Scriptures — the man "shapen in iniquity," "con- 
ceived in sin," "with no good thing dwelling in 
him," "carnally minded," "at enmity with God," 
"not subject to the law of God," "by nature a child 
of wrath," "dead in trespasses and sins," etc. — is 
not evolution but revolution, not reformation but 
^-formation, regeneration, not a mere process of 
gradual development upward, but a radical change 
in his nature. 

Trying to reform such a man, to use a Scrip- 
tural illustration, would be like washing a sow. 
It will be a temporary improvement. But if you 
simply wash the mud off of her body and leave 
her swinish nature unchanged, the first mudhole 
she comes to she will rush into it and return to her 
wallowing in the mire. Trying to reform a man 
whose nature is all corrupted by sin would also be, 
as Dr. Strong suggests, in his "Systematic The- 
ology," like the eddies in the stream. They may 
whirl around against the current, but the general 
sweep of the current is downward, and it bears 
them with it. Or it would be like a man walking 
backward on a train. No matter how rapidly he 
may walk, the moving train bears him swiftly 
onward in the opposite direction. Or it is like a 
man adrift on an ice floe traveling toward the 
north, while the floe is drifting toward the south 
much faster than he can travel. The currents of 



REGENERATION 



97 



a man's soul have a downward sweep. His whole 
nature, like the ice floe, has broken loose from its 
moorings and is drifting rapidly away from God. 
The eddies in the current are but temporary expe- 
dients at best. The current itself must be 
changed, and, if I may use the paradoxical expres- 
sion, turned up stream. The man walking on 
the drifting ice floe will never reach the North 
Pole. The floe must be turned back toward the 
pole. That, of course, can only be done by a 
revolution and not an evolution, for an evolution 
would only mean moving farther and still more 
swiftly in the direction in which it was going. 
Here is seen the necessity for regeneration. If 
man's nature is so corrupt that it will not do to 
let him alone, and if you cannot reform him into 
a better life, then there must be a thorough reno- 
vation of his nature in order that he may be 
brought back to God and saved. This renovation 
is what we call regeneration. 

2. Another reason why regeneration is neces- 
sary is found in the nature of God, as well as in 
the nature of man, as I have shown. Except a 
man be born again he not only cannot enter the 
kingdom of God, he cannot even see it. That 
kingdom is a spiritual kingdom. It is pure and 
holy. It is only the "pure in heart" who shall see 
God. "Without holiness no man shall see the 
Lord." Man is not naturally pure in heart. He 
is very impure, as we have seen. He is not holy 

7 



98 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

by nature. The dispositions of his soul are very 
unholy. They need to be changed. They must 
be changed before he can see the Lord. His 
harsh, discordant nature must be attuned in har- 
mony with God's nature before he can come into 
God's presence. That tuning of the harp of the 
soul is what we call regeneration. It does not 
mean, however, that there must be a perfect accord 
of man's nature with that of God. The holiness 
required is not, I think, an absolute holiness in 
every thought and word and deed. But it means 
that the tendencies, the dispositions of his soul 
must be holy. 

3. A third and similar reason is found in the 
nature of heaven. Here are some of the descrip- 
tions given of it: "Awake, awake, put on thy 
strength, O Zion ; put on thy beautiful garments, 
O Jerusalem, the holy city : for henceforth there 
shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised' 
and the unclean" (Isa. 52 : 1). "The Son of man 
shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather 
out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling 
and that do iniquity" (Matt. 13: 41). "And 
there shall in nowise enter into it anything un- 
clean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie : 
but only they that are written in the Lamb's book 
of life" (Rev. 21 : 27). From these descriptions 
and from the facts which I have shown about the 
nature of man it will be evident that no one could 
enter heaven unless his nature should be radically 



REGENERATION 99 

changed. Or if by any possible chance he could 
enter that bright realm he would feel so out of 
place, everything would be so uncongenial and 
inharmonious to him that he would be miserable 
there — more miserable, I believe, than he would 
be among kindred spirits in the abode of the 
damned. We can appreciate now the beauty and 
significance of Paul's words when he said that 
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself 
up for it; that he might sanctify it, having 
cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, 
that he might present the church to himself a glo- 
rious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any 
such thing ; but that it should be holy and without 
blemish" (Eph. 5 : 25, 26, 27). 

In view of these facts, then, the nature of man, 
the nature of God, and the nature of heaven, the 
words come back to us with redoubled emphasis, 
"Ye must be born again." 

II. The nature of regeneration. If it be a 
thing so important, so absolutely essential, what 
is it? My reply to this question is threefold: 
1. It is supernal. 2. It is internal. 3. It is eternal. 

1. It is supernal. By this is simply meant 
that it comes from above, from God and not from 
man himself. The preposition translated "again" 
in the expression "born again" is anothen, and 
means literally "from above." In that remarkable 
book, "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," Prof. 



100 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Drummond calls attention to the fact that for 
200 years the scientific world has been divided 
upon the question of whether all life comes from 
life, or whether there can be such a thing as 
spontaneous generation. An effort was made to 
prove the latter theory by taking an infusion of 
hay, or other organic matter, boiling it to kill all 
germs of life, and then putting it in a glass vessel 
which is hermetically sealed to exclude the outer 
air, the air inside having been exposed to boiling 
temperature, so that it also is supposed to be 
dead. Now, if any life appears in the vessel it 
must have sprung into being of itself. After 
various experiments of this kind, the doctrine of 
spontaneous generation has been given up by the 
scientific world as utterly untenable. Huxley 
acknowledged that the doctrine of life only from 
life, or what Prof. Drummond calls biogenesis, 
is "victorious along the whole line at the present 
day." And Tyndall, while confessing that he 
wished the evidence were the other way, said : 
"I affirm that no shred of trustworthy experi- 
mental testimony exists to prove that life in our 
day has ever appeared independent of antecedent 
life." 

Prof. Drummond goes on to say : 

"For much more than two hundred years a similar 
discussion has dragged its length through the religious 
world. Two great schools here also have defended 
exactly opposite views — one that the Spiritual Life in 



REGENERATION 



101 



man can only come from pre-existing life, the other 
that it can Spontaneously Generate itself. Taking its 
stand upon the initial statement of the Author of Spir- 
itual Life, one small school, in the face of derision and 
opposition, has persistently maintained the doctrine of 
Biogenesis. Another, larger and with greater preten- 
sion to philosophic form, has defended Spontaneous 
Generation. The difference between the two positions 
is radical. Translating from the languarge of science 
into religion, the theory of Spontaneous Generation is 
simply that a man may become gradually better and 
better until in course of the process he reaches that 
quality of religious nature known as Spiritual Life. 
This Life is not something added ab extra to the natural 
man. It is the normal and appropriate development of 
the natural man. Biogenesis opposes to this the whole 
doctrine of Regeneration. The Spiritual Life is the 
gift of the Living Spirit. The Spiritual man is no 
mere development of the natural man. He is a New 
Creature born from Above. As well expect a hay in- 
fusion to become gradually more and more living until 
in course of the process it reached vitality, as expect a 
man by becoming better and better to attain the Eter- 
nal Life/' 

"Omne vivum ex vivo" all life must come 
from life, is as true in the spiritual world as it 
is in the natural world. A man cannot generate 
himself. There must be an influence from the 
outside to bring him into existence. He must 
have a father. This is as true of the second birth 
as it is of the first birth. 

We are accustomed to speak of three king- 
doms in the world — the mineral, the vegetable 



102 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

and the animal. But there is a fourth kingdom — 
the kingdom of God. It is that which we are 
considering now. How do things pass from one 
kingdom to another ? How does the mineral pass 
to the vegetable kingdom? It has no power of 
itself to do so. It is dead, motionless. It cannot 
reach up to the vegetable kingdom. There must 
come a revelation from above. The vegetable 
must reach down and touch the mineral and lift 
it up and assimilate it to itself. In this way the 
mineral becomes vegetable. How can the vege- 
table pass to the animal kingdom? It has no 
power of itself to do so. It has a certain form 
of life, but it is very different from the animal 
life. It lacks the power of self motion. It can- 
not reach up to the animal kingdom. There must 
come a revelation from above. The animal must 
reach down and touch the vegetable and lift it 
up and assimilate it to itself. In this way the 
vegetable becomes animal. How can the animal 
pass to the kingdom of God? He has no power 
of himself to do so. He has a certain form of 
life, much higher than that of the vegetable, but 
still very different from the life of the kingdom 
of God. He cannot reach up to the kingdom of 
God. He cannot of himself bridge the chasm 
which separates the two kingdoms. You might 
as well talk of a man lifting himself up to the 
skies by his shoe strings as to talk of his lifting 
himself up to the kingdom of God unaided. 



REGENERATION 



103 



There must come a revelation from above. God 
must reach down and touch the man and lift him 
up and assimilate him to himself. In this way 
can the man pass from the animal kingdom into 
the kingdom of God, and in this way alone. 

What is this but to say what the Saviour an- 
nounced to Nicodemus that night with so start- 
ling an effect : "Except a man be born from 
above he cannot see the kingdom of God ?" The 
same truth is taught also in many other passages 
of Scripture. Says the plaintive Jeremiah, "Can 
the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his 
spots ? then may ye also do good, that are accus- 
tomed to do evil" (Jeremiah 13:23). There 
must be a change of nature before you who are 
accustomed to do evil can turn and do good. But 
you can no more change your own nature than 
the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard 
his spots. Ezekiel represents God as saying: "A 
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you; and I will take away the 
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you 
a heart of flesh" (Ezek. 36: 26). John says that 
those who have become the sons of God "were 
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor 
of the will of man, but of God" (John 1 : 13). 
Paul speaks of the Corinthian Christians as "an 
epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not 
with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God" 
(2 Cor. 3:3). He says also that "all things are 



104 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



of God, who reconciled us to himself through 
Christ'' (2 Cor. 5:18). James says: "Of his 
own will he brought us forth by the word of 
truth" (James 1:18). Peter exclaims : "Blessed 
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who according to his great mercy begat us 
again unto a living hope by the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). He 
also says that Christians are "begotton again, not 
of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through 
the word of God, which liveth and abideth" (1 
Peter 1 : 23). 

Notice in these passages the different instru- 
ments used by God in accomplishing this regen- 
eration. (1) There is "the Spirit of the living 
God." (2) "Jesus Christ." (3) "The resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ from the dead." (4) "the 
word of God." (5) "The word of truth." These 
are all agents or means in accomplishing the re- 
generation of the sinner, some of them being the 
same. The Holy Spirit as God's representative 
uses the word of truth as a sword "piercing even 
to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of 
joints and marrow," and discerning "the thoughts 
and intents of the heart," penetrating the secrets 
of the heart, revealing its sinfulness to itself, and 
then pointing it to Jesus Christ, "the 'Lamb of 
God which taketh away the sin of the world," 
"who was delivered for our offenses and raised 
again for our justification," and through faith 



REGENERATION 105 

uniting Christ and the sinner, and thus accom- 
plishing the sinner's regeneration. But notice 
also and especially that whatever the means used 
the power is always of God. He is back of the 
means. He is the author, the originator of the 
regeneration. 

2. This regeneration is internal. It is not 
external, not physical, but spiritual. It is, as I 
said in the outset, a change of the dispositions 
of the soul wrought by the Holy Spirit through 
faith in Christ. Under the shell there was an 
animal, behind the book there was a man, and so 
back of a man's actions there is a man's nature. 
Back of what he does is what he is. 'The mind's 
the standard of the man," said Pope. Yes, but 
the heart is the man. The state of the heart de- 
termines the character of his deeds. "Change the 
center of a circle and you change the place and 
direction of all its radii." Change the heart of 
a man and you change all of his actions. "A tree 
is known by its fruits." And so are the fruits 
known by the tree. Said the Saviour: "The 
good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth 
good things : and the evil man out of his evil 
treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matt. 
12:35). "For out of the heart come forth evil 
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, 
false witness, railings" (Matt. 15:19). After 
his great sin David prayed, "Create in me a 
clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit 



106 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

within me" (Ps. 51:10). Jeremiah prophesied 
that the Lord would make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel, and represents God as saying : 
"After those days, saith Jehovah, I will put my 
law in their inward parts, and in their heart will 
I write it ; and I will be their God and they shall 
be my people" (Jer. 31 : 33). The fulfillment of 
that prophecy was seen, I think, when Christ 
came into the world to establish the kingdom 
of God which should be a spiritual kingdom, a 
kingdom of the heart and not of the physical 
actions. That kingdom "cometh not with obser- 
vation" (Luke 17:20). It "is not eating and 
drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy 
in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17). It is not 
physical but spiritual. Paul says, "For with the 
heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 
10:10). He represents the Roman Christians 
as having been "obedient from the heart to that 
form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered" 
(Rom. 6: 17). 

It is said of one of the earliest converts to 
Christianity that the Lord opened her heart so 
that she gave "heed unto the things which were 
spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14). It is evident 
from these passages that the kingdom of God is 
a spiritual kingdom, and that to get into it will 
require a spiritual process. I have spoken of the 
dispositions of the soul as being corrupt and 
turned away from God. What is needed, then, 



REGENERATION 



107 



is that these dispositions shall be renewed, reno- 
vated, revolutionized, turned back to God. That 
is what it means to be born again. It cannot 
mean simply a reformation. That would be cut- 
ting down the sprouts of the upas tree, w T hile the 
tree is left untouched. To get rid of the tree you 
must strike at its roots. This regeneration 
means, in short, to become what Paul calls "a 
new creature. " "Wherefore if any man is in 
Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are 
passed away; behold, they are become new" (2 
Cor. 5:17). 

It is only in Christ that one does become a new 
creature. By union with him he comes into the 
soul, and by the magic power of his presence 
renovates and revolutionizes it. Where Christ 
and the soul meet there is the point of regenera- 
tion, as the gracious result of the meeting. We 
are God's workmanship, "created in Christ Jesus 
for good works" (Eph. 2:10). Christ abideth 
in us and we in him, and by thus dwelling in us 
he gives us a positive force by which to. over- 
come evil. Light drives out darkness, and holi- 
ness expels sin. "For to me to live is Christ" 
(Phil. 1:21). 

We cannot live in the real, high sense without 
him. So true is this that John said : "He that 
believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that 
obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). 



108 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Again, in his epistle he repeated the statement 
in even stronger language, "God gave unto us 
eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that 
hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the 
Son of God hath not the life" (i John 5:11, 12). 
Whatever else he may have, he hasn't life, real, 
true, spiritual life. Jesus said, "1 come that they 
may have life, and may have it abundantly" (John 
10: 10). 

The only way that man can reach up to this 
kingdom of God is through Christ. When the 
unclean spirit who had been cast out of the man 
returned to the house of the man's soul he found 
it swept and garnished, but with no occupant. 
So he brought seven other spirits worse than 
himself and took possession. Here was reforma- 
tion, but not regeneration. The work accom- 
plished was all negative. What was needed was 
a positive force established in the soul to drive 
out all evil intruders. Christ supplies this posi- 
tive force for us. He gives us new motives, new 
affections, new strength. When the soul comes 
into vital union with him it feels the electric thrill 
of his presence running through every nerve. He 
fills the soul and leaves no room for unholy dis- 
positions. He becomes our very life. We draw 
our spiritual breath from him. He is "the way, 
and the truth and the life : no man cometh unto 
the Father but by him" (John 14 : 6). 

This union with Christ is accomplished by 



REGENERATION 109 

faith j which always presumes a genuine repent- 
ance for sin as having preceded. "By grace have 
ye been saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8). "Re- 
pent ye and believe the gospel" (Mark 1: 15). 
Faith is the grappling hook which the soul throws 
out to grasp hold of Christ. It is the arm of the 
soul stretched forth to seize upon Christ. It is 
the nexus, the link to bind Christ and the soul 
together. When the two are thus united by 
faith, then comes regeneration. 

The question is sometimes asked, Which 
comes first } regeneration or faith? Some say 
regeneration, others faith. One side asks, Can 
there be such a thing as an unregenerate be- 
liever? To which the other retorts, Can there 
be such a thing as a regenerate unbeliever? As 
both propositions seem absurd, neither side can 
reply to the other. Now what is the solution 
of the problem ? It seems to me to be very simple, 
so simple that I wonder that people should mis- 
take it. It is this : They both go together. It 
is the old story of the shield that was gold on one 
side and silver on the other. Regeneration is the 
golden side of the shield of salvation, and faith 
is the silver side. Regeneration is God's act, 
faith is man's. The man is not regenerated by 
God, independent of any act upon his part. The 
process of regeneration is not complete until it 
expresses itself in repentance and faith. God, 
I believe, begins the salvation of man by leading 



110 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

him, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, to 
repentance and faith, but the man himself must 
respond to God's loving overtures by repenting 
of his sins and believing on Christ before he can 
be saved. Viewed in this light, it is evident that 
there is no conflict between regeneration and faith. 
They are simply parts of one whole, one on God's 
side and the other on man's, but both necessary to 
complete the shield of salvation. The shield is 
not perfect without both sides. But notice that 
both repentance and faith are themselves in- 
ternal, spiritual processes. The sphere of their 
existence and of their operations is in the soul, 
though their effects, their fruits, are seen in the 
life. 

The question is sometimes asked also, What 
is the difference between regeneration and con- 
version? I think it is simply this : Regeneration 
is God's act, conversion is man's. Regeneration 
is God turning the man, conversion is man turn- 
ing to God. In regeneration man is passive, in 
conversion he is active. Regeneration is inward, 
conversion is first inward and then outward. Re- 
generation is spiritual, conversion is both spirit- 
ual and physical. Regeneration is the cause, 
conversion the effect. Regeneration is the ante- 
cedent, conversion the consequent. Regenera- 
tion is the root, conversion the fruit. The Holy 
Spirit operates upon the soul, causing regenera- 
tion, and the conversion or the turning around 



REGENERATION 



111 



of the man follows. The will, the affections, the 
dispositions are changed in regeneration. Then 
comes the exercise of these new dispositions, 
which results in a corresponding outward change 
of the words, the deeds, the life, which is con- 
version. Regeneration is the wind, conversion 
the effects, to use the illustration of Christ. As 
sure as effect follows cause, as sure as the ship 
responds to the rudder, as sure as a tree is known 
by its fruits, so sure will conversion follow re- 
generation and be its evidence and test. 

3. Regeneration is eternal. I cannot dwell 
very long on this point and need not do so, I 
think. What is born cannot be unborn. You say 
it may die; but death is only a change of exist- 
ence, not a destruction of it. It is a transforma- 
tion, not an annihilation. This is true in the 
physical world with regard to the first birth. But 
in a higher sense it is true in the spiritual world 
with regard to the second birth. A person may 
be unregenerate, but he cannot be unregenerated. 
The revolution wrought by the Holy Spirit in 
the dispositions of the soul is thorough and per- 
manent. It does not go backward. 

I think that the difference in the theories upon 
this subject may be accounted for by the differ- 
ences in theory both as to the necessity and the 
nature of regeneration. Those who hold that 
the nature of man is depraved, and that regen- 
eration consists in the renovation of this depraved 



112 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



nature by the power of the Holy Spirit through 
faith in Christ, hold also that the renovation thus 
accomplished is a permanent one because it rests 
in the power of the Holy Spirit. But those who 
hold that man's nature is not depraved, but only 
his deeds are evil, and that regeneration consists 
in a reformation of his actions, which he may 
accomplish by his own power, hold also that the 
reformation may be permanent or temporary, de- 
pending upon the man himself. 

It is a question of w 7 ho saves, God or man, or 
at least of who starts salvation, God or man. If 
God saves, God will keep. If man saves, man 
may fall. If God begins the good work in man 
he will perform it to the end. If man begins it, 
he may stop short of completion. If salvation 
depends upon the power of man, it may be lost. 
If it depends upon the power of God, it will be 
sure. Man is weak. God is omnipotent. He "is 
able to keep us from falling." Trusting to him 
and not to ourselves we can say with Paul : "I 
know him whom I have believed, and I am per- 
suaded that he is able to guard that which I have 
committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 
1 : 12). We have committed to him the question 
of our salvation, involving as it does all our 
hopes for a future life, and he will keep it. And 
we ourselves also, as Peter says, "by the power 
of God are guarded through faith unto a salva- 
tion ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 



REGENERATION 



113 



Peter 1:5). Underneath us are the "everlasting 
arms," upholding and supporting us. The Saviour 
said: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know 
them, and they follow me : and I give unto them 
eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no 
one shall snatch them out of my hand. My 
Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater 
than all; and no one is able to snatch them out 
of my Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). And 
Paul voices the feeling of every true Christian 
heart when he exclaimed in that beautiful perora- 
tion which forms so fitting a climax to the noble 
eighth chapter of Romans, which begins : 
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them 
that are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1); "For I 
am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor 
angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor 
things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor 
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to 
separate us from the love of God, which is in 
Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38,39). 

I think that those who hold that a man may be 
regenerated and then become unregenerated for- 
get the nature of regeneration. Regeneration is 
not sanctification. Regeneration is the birth and 
sanctification the growth. A child is not full 
grown at birth. The new birth also is spiritual, 
not physical. It changes the dispositions of the 
soul, but not the appetites of the body. These 
still remain, and may lead to sin. Let it be re- 
8 



114 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

membered that a Christian may sin, or to express 
it a little more clearly, a man may sin and still 
be a Christian, and the fact that he sins does not 
necessarily prove that he is not a Christian, or 
that if he has been one he has lost all of his 
religion. How far a man may go in sin and still 
be a Christian I cannot say. David went pretty 
far, and so did Peter. 

Such persons also forget, I fear, that a Chris- 
tian is subject to different moods, depending 
largely upon his temperament, together with cir- 
cumstances. The mercury of grace rises or falls 
in the thermometer of his soul according to the 
temperature of his spiritual atmosphere. But 
it does not fall out of the thermometer. It only 
falls in it. From Mt. Carmel to the juniper tree 
was a tremendous fall for Elijah, but the juniper 
tree was on the way to Mt. Horeb, and Mt. Horeb 
prepared him for the chariot of fire. 

Let it be said also that sometimes when it is 
thought that a regenerate man has become unre- 
generated, has "fallen from grace/' it may be 
that he was never regenerated after all and that 
he never had any grace to fall from. He may 
have deceived others, or more likely was self- 
deceived. Simon Magus was, I believe, an early 
and striking illustration of this truth. 

I said awhile ago that what is born cannot 
be unborn. Let me add that if it could it cer- 
tainly could not be reborn. While there are two 



REGENERATION 



115 



births, one is physical and the other spiritual. 
There cannot be two physical births, and there 
cannot be two spiritual births. We are born 
but once with the same kind of birth. The theory 
that we may be born and unborn and then re- 
born is harder to believe than that of the trans- 
migration of souls, for that presumes the con- 
tinual existence of the soul, while the theory we 
are considering represents the soul as playing 
hide and seek with itself, now here, now gone, 
now living, now dead. The story of Dr. Jekyll 
and Mr. Hyde would have been impossible had 
Mr. Hyde been a dead man. Hear what Paul 
says : "For as touching those who were once 
enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and 
were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and 
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of 
the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossi- 
ble to renew them again unto repentance; seeing 
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, 
and put him to an open shame" (Heb. 6:4-6). 
Whatever else this famous and much disputed 
passage may mean, it certainly means that if you 
should, after once being regenerate, become un- 
regenerated — presuming such a thing to be pos- 
sible — you can never recover your lost position, 
it is impossible to renew you again unto repent- 
ance. That is the special teaching of the pas- 
sage, its essential point, and it is a fearful thought. 
Regeneration is not a trifling matter, so that it 



116 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

may be put on and off like a Sunday coat. It is 
not only for a day, but for life, not only for time, 
but for eternity. Not only is it true that "he that 
hath the Son hath life," but it is also true that 
"he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
life." He has it now, here in this world, as soon 
as he believes, and he is thus regenerated through 
a union with Christ by faith ; and he is only wait- 
ing for the full revelation of its beauties and 
glories to him in that other world. The root is 
implanted in his soul when it takes hold of Christ 
by faith, and while there will be some fruit here 
on this earth, it will not be seen in all its perfec- 
tion until the soul stands in the presence of 
Christ with nothing to come between it and him, 
and there in the sunlight of his blessed counte- 
nance it shall burst into a glorious flower, and the 
flower shall open wide and wider, growing more 
and more beautiful, exhaling still sweeter and 
sweeter fragrance as the ages of eternity roll by. 
"Ye must be born again." But once born again 
ye are born forever — thank God. 



LETTER NO. 7 



REGENERATION BEFORE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 

My Dear Son : — In discussing the subject of 
regeneration, I urged the importance — in fact, 
the necessity — of regeneration in order to have 
salvation. I want now to urge the importance of 
regeneration before church membership, of a 
membership composed only of converted people. 
I need not enter into details on this subject. 

The Catholics make no bones of saying that 
salvation is to be obtained in the church. They 
say that if you are a member of the church — of 

the church — you will be saved, no matter what 
you are, no matter what you do. If you are not 
a member of the church, you will not be saved, 
no matter what you are, no matter what you do. 
If you have been baptized and yet have been 
excommunicated from the church, you will suffer 
the penalty of damnation. 

There has been a distinguished evangelist 
going up and down the length and breadth of this 
country, preaching to the people by the thousands. 
The burden of his preaching was, "Quit your 
meanness and join the church." While some 
quit their meanness and joined the church, some 

( 117) 



118 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

quit their meanness without joining the church, 
others joined the church without quitting their 
meanness, and still others neither quit their mean- 
ness nor joined the church. The great trouble 
with this evangelist was that he did not preach 
the gospel. He preached the law, but not the 
gospel. Like John the Baptist, he told people 
to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, but 
unlike John the Baptist, he did not point men to 
the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of 
the world. 

In this city several years ago a pastor of a 
certain church, not a Baptist, asked a lady to 
join his church. She replied, "I am not good 
enough/' He answered, "J°i n the church and 
it will help you to get good." This idea is in 
the minds of a great many people — that the 
church is a kind of institution for helping people 
to get good, and to save them. They talk about 
joining the church a good deal like they talk 
about joining the Masons or the Knights of 
Pythias or the club. 

And do not Baptists often have a lingering 
notion that the church will have something to do 
with their salvation? If their names are written 
on the church book, they feel that they will be 
saved. If not, they do not feel quite safe in 
regard to what shall become of them on the 
other side — unless perhaps they have a church 
letter. If they have that, they feel that they will 



REGENERATION BEFORE MEMBERSHIP 



119 



be all right. They seem to think that when they 
come up to the pearly gates, and Peter— if Peter 
does keep the gates, and I do not believe he does 
— shall ask them for their credentials, they will 
pull out that old church letter, dusty, musty, 
rusty old letter, and show that to him, and they 
think that Peter will bow and say, "It is all 
right, walk in." 

I knew a lady once who had had a church 
letter in her trunk for seventeen years. I knew 
a gentleman who kept his letter in his trunk for 
forty years. Those who rejoice that their name 
is written on the church book, forget that having 
their name written on the church book is not the 
same as having it written in the Lamb's book of 
life. Unfortunately the two are not always neces- 
sarily the same, as they ought to be. The worst 
place in the world for an unconverted person is 
in the church, because it gives him a sense of 
fancied security where there is none. Oftentimes 
the church becomes the very cradle of Satan to 
rock the deluded soul into an eternal sleep. I 
believe in the church. 

"I love thy church, O God, 

Her walls before thee stand, 
Dear as the apple of thine eye, 
And graven on thy hand. 

"For her my tears shall fall, 

For her my prayers ascend; 
To her my toils and cares be given, 
Till toils and cares shall end/' 



120 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

But the church is for saved people, not 
to save people. Christ before the church. 
Christianity, not churchianity. Regeneration 
before church membership. Without that 
regeneration, no one is fit for membership in 
the church of Jesus Christ. The church is 
intended only for those who have been born 
again under the operation of the Spirit of God 
and who voluntarily associate themselves together 
to carry on the Lord's work in that community 
and over the world. 

This is our Baptist theory. Is it always our 
practice ? Are we always as careful as we should 
be to see that none but those who have been thus 
regenerated by the Holy Spirit, as far as we can 
tell, shall become members of the church of Jesus 
Christ? And when sometimes the goats slip in 
among the sheep and give evidence by that divine 
test of "By their fruits ye shall know them," that 
they have not thus been born again, are we always 
as careful as we ought to be to exercise the 
needed discipline and say to them kindly but 
sadly, "You are not of us, and because you are 
not of us, you should go out from us ?" Oh, for 
a revival of old-fashioned, Baptist, New Testa- 
ment discipline in all of our churches ! 

The Baptists stand for a regenerated church 
membership, or they stand for nothing. That is 
the bed-rock of their faith, the foundation stone 
of their doctrines. For that thev have stood all 



REGENERATION BEFORE MEMBERSHIP 121 

through the ages. That principle has come down 
to us from Christ and the apostles — come down 
sometimes through fire and through blood — but, 
thank God, it has come to us. 

We have received that as a sacred heritage 
from the hands of our Baptist fathers. Let us 
guard it carefully. Let us hold aloft our banner 
on which is emblazoned, "Regeneration before 
church membership." Christ before the church. 
Through Christ to the church, not through the 
church to Christ. 



LETTER NO. 8 



SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. 

My Dear Son : — We have seen that a person 
must be born again to enter the kingdom of 
Heaven. We have seen that this regeneration 
is supernal, internal, eternal — that is, that it is 
God's act, that it is spiritual and that it lasts 
forever. We have seen that Regeneration comes 
before membership in a Baptist church. Now the 
question comes, Is there anything each person 
can do to secure his own salvation, and if so, 
what? You remember, perhaps, the story of 
Paul and Silas. They were two preachers — two 
Baptist preachers, I think — who were thrown in 
jail in Philippi because they preached the gospel 
to Lydia and others by the riverside near the city. 
While in jail, about midnight, instead of sleeping, 
Paul and Silas were "praying and singing hymns 
unto God, and the prisoners were listening to 
them ; and suddenly there was a great earthquake, 
so that the foundations of the prison-house were 
shaken: and immediately all the doors were 
opened ; and every one's bands were loosed. And 
the jailor, being roused out of sleep and seeing 
the prison doors open, drew his sword and was 
about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners 

(122) 



SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH 123 

had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, 
saying, Do thyself no harm : for we are all here. 
And he called for lights and sprang in, and 
trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and 
Silas, and brought them out and said, Sirs, what 
must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe 
on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou 
and thy house" (Acts 16:25-31). 

The question asked by the jailor that night, 
"What must I do to be saved ?" every one is ask- 
ing. All down the ages men have asked that 
question. It is the most important question a 
person could ask. Upon the answer to it hang 
momentous issues, eternal destinies. It becomes 
a matter of supreme importance, therefore, that 
the question shall be answered right. You are 
young. You have never been a very bad boy, 
I am glad to say. You are generally obedient to 
your parents. Your reports at school not only 
show that you have been a good student, but 
that your deportment has been good, usually per- 
fect. You have received very few demerits. 
You go to Sunday school every Sunday and seem 
to enjoy going. But with all this you are a sin- 
ner, and you know it. The law says, "The soul 
that sinneth it shall die." You have probably 
frequently asked in your heart the question asked 
by the jailor, "What must I do to be saved?" Let 
me try to answer it for you in as simple a manner 
as possible. 



124 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

When the forerunner of Jesus, John the Bap- 
tist, began his ministry, the first public words 
which fell from his lips were "Repent ye; for 
the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). 
He "came preaching the baptism of repentance 
unto remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). 
Jesus when he began his ministry in Galilee took 
up John's message and said, "The time is ful- 
filled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : Repent 
ye, and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1 : 15). He 
chose twelve apostles to assist him in his ministry 
and sent them out. "And they went out and 
preached that men should repent 3 ' (Mark 
6 : 12). He said to the Jews, "Except ye repent, 
ye shall all in like manner perish" (Luke 
13:3), like those Galileans, whose blood Pilate 
mingled with their sacrifice. To the conscience- 
stricken Jews on the day of Pentecost who cried 
out, after Peter's wonderful sermon, "Brethren, 
what shall we do?" the first thing Peter said was 
"repent 3 ' (Acts 2: 38). Again Peter said, 
"Repent ye, therefore, and turn again, that 
your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3 : 19). Paul 
tells us that "God commandeth men that they 
should all everywhere repent' 3 (Acts 17: 30). 
To the Ephesian elders at Miletus, Paul said that 
he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel 
of God, "testifying both to Jews and to Greeks 
repentance toward God, and faith toward our 
Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). The writer 



SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH 125 

of the Hebrews speaks of the "foundation of 
repentance from dead works, and of faith toward 
God" (Heb. 6: i). And so it looks like repent- 
ance has something to do with it, that it is a part 
of the plan of salvation. 

But then while John preached the baptism of 
repentance, he said to the people "that they 
should believe on him that should come after 
him, that is, on Jesus" (Acts 19:4). Again he 
said, "He that believeth on the Son hath 
eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son 
shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth 
on him" (John 3:36). Jesus said in his first 
Galilean sermon, "Repent ye, and believe in 
the gospel" (Mark 1:15). He said to Nico- 
demus, "For God so loved the world that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
on him should not perish, but have eternal 
life" (John 3:16). This is the golden text of 
the Bible, an epitome of the Gospel, a little Bible 
in itself. Paul, in saying that he had preached 
repentance at Ephesus, added "and faith to- 
ward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20: 21). 
He said, "Being therefore justified by faith, 
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ" (Rom. 5:1). Again, "The righteous 
shall live by faith" (Gal. 3: 11). And again, 
"By grace have ye been saved through faith" 
(Eph. 2:8). To the jailor inquiring "What 
must I do to be saved?" Paul answered, "Be- 



126 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

lieve on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be 
saved" (Acts 16:31). And so it looks like 
belief, or faith, has something to do with 
it, too, that it also is a part of the plan of salva- 
tion along with repentance. How do you recon- 
cile the two? They do not need any reconcilia- 
tion. They go together. They both are required. 
Both are needed, Both are necessary to make up 
the plan of salvation. 

Boiled down to the finest point, the essence of 
the plan of salvation is in these two words — 
SINNER, SAVIOUR. To these words re- 
pentance and. faith correspond — repentance 
to sinner, faith to Saviour. Sinner, Saviour 
— Repentance, Faith. Sinner, Repentance — Sa- 
viour, Faith. Repentance means the sinner turn- 
ing from his sin; faith means the sinner turning 
to his Saviour. There are two steps to salvation 
— out of self, into Christ; out of sin, to the 
Saviour; repentance, faith. Well, if repentance 
and faith are so important then, what are they ? 

1. What is their nature? What do they 
mean? 

(1) Repentance means literally a change 
of mind, or an afterthought. It means, "I loved 
sin, now I hate sin. I hated God, now I love God. 
I had done wrong, now I want to do right." Is 
there no sorrow in repentance ? Yes, "Godly sor- 
row," a sorrow towards God, "worketh repent- 
ance that needeth not to be repented of," it leads 



SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH 127 

to a change of mind which does not need any 
further change, which is permanent and complete. 
It requires that sorrow toward God to make re- 
pentance genuine and thorough. If there be no 
such godly sorrow, the repentance will be super- 
ficial and temporary. 

There was sorrow in the repentance of Judas. 
But it was a selfish, not a godly sorrow; a sor- 
row for the consequences of his act, not for the 
act In the repentance of Peter there was deep 
sorrow. "He went out and wept bitterly." And 
it was a Godly sorrow. When the Lord looked 
upon Peter — such a look, so full of tenderness 
and love — the pent-up fountain of his conscience 
was unloosed and found vent in bitter tears. At 
that look a flood of memories rushed over him. 
He realized the enormity of his sin in denying 
his Master who had always been so good to him. 
David expressed this true repentance when he 
cried in that remarkable prayer for forgiveness 
recorded in the Fifty-first Psalm, written after 
Nathan the prophet had shown him the awful- 
ness of his crime, "Against thee, thee only, have 
I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy 
sight" (Ps. 51:4). That was a godly sorrow, 
a sorrow towards God, which led to a change of 
mind and of heart and of life. 

(2) Faith means, "I believe that Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God. I believe that he is 
able and willing and ready to save sinners." It 



128 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

means all that. But it means one step more than 
that. It means, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God. I believe that he is able and willing 
and ready to save sinners." One step more — 
"Lord, / am a sinner, and I take thee for my 
Saviour." A personal trust on Christ as a per- 
sonal Saviour — that is the very essence of faith. 
Nothing short of that is faith. Of course, I am 
talking about saving faith — the faith that saves, 
faith in the plan of salvation. That there is an 
historical faith, a faith which recognizes Jesus 
Christ as the Son of God and the Saviour of men, 
is admitted. But that faith does not save. The 
devils in hell believe all that, but they are not 
saved. It is only when the soul, realizing its sin- 
fulness, and repenting of its sins, turns to Christ, 
and finding itself sinking in the waves of sin, 
cries out in helpless anguish and with out- 
stretched arms, like Peter, "Lord, save, I perish," 
that Jesus reaches forth his hand and saves. 
Faith is the grappling hook which lays hold on 
Jesus. It is the bond which unites our soul to 
him, the nexus between us and him. 



LETTER NO. 9 



SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH, NOT OF 
WORKS. 

My Dear Son : — There are some who say that 
salvation is a matter of works, that it depends 
upon your own deeds whether you are saved or 
not. It is a sad commentary upon human nature 
that this idea came into the world with the first 
man ever born into it. When Cain and Abel 
offered sacrifices to the Lord, Abel brought a 
lamb, and the shed blood of that lamb pointed 
a way from himself to the Lamb of God which 
was to be slain on Calvary, and indicated that he 
trusted, not in himself, not in any merits of his 
own, not in any deeds which he had done or 
could do, but in that blood, for his redemption 
from sin and his salvation. But Cain brought 
the fruit of the ground. That fruit represented 
the labor of his own hands. He had cultivated 
that fruit. He had worked hard to produce it. 
He felt that the Lord ought to accept it as ex- 
pressing his toil and as representing his personal 
work, showing what he had done and what he 
could do. But you remember that the Lord ac- 
cepted the sacrifice of Abel and rejected that of 
Cain. 

9 (129) 



130 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

These two ideas have been in the world ever 
since. All through the Bible, from Genesis to 
Revelation, the blood of Jesus Christ runs as a 
scarlet thread. All down the ages that glorious 
truth has come, of salvation through the blood 
of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, not 
of works. But alas ! the other idea, of salvation 
by works, has also come all along the centuries. 
That idea was in the minds of those people who 
used to stand with arms uplifted and fingers 
clenched until the nails would grow into the flesh 
and through the flesh to the other side, and 
until the arm became withered and shrivelled, 
believing that in that way they were making a 
sacrifice of themselves and would win the favor 
of God. That idea was in the minds of those 
who used to stand in their cages, which were too 
short for them to lie down at length in, and too 
low for them to stand erect in, and there in con- 
stant bodily pain they would spend weary weeks 
and months and years. That idea was in the 
minds of those who used to throw themselves be- 
neath the car of Juggernaut to be crushed be- 
neath its ponderous wheels. It was in the minds 
of those who would cast their children into the 
fiery arms of Moloch or into the River Ganges, 
to be devoured by flames or by the crocodiles. 
All of these things were but the expression of the 
feeling upon the part of those people that they 
themselves needed to do something toward their 



SALVATION THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS 131 

own salvation, and the greater the sacrifice the 
more certain would be the salvation. 

In that interesting book, "The Child of the 
Ganges/' Dr. R. N. Barrett tells about many of 
these ceremonies. He represents a Brahmin 
priest in Benares as saying in answer to the in- 
quiry, "How may we become free from sin?" 
"By continual mortification of the body, by 
strangling all mortal desires, passions and affec- 
tions of every kind. If life be made continual 
pain, from which death would be a happy re- 
lease, then sin would be purged, and the pure, 
immaterial soul set free. Some attain that per- 
fection in this life, others pass through many 
states of existence before their final release. 
Eternal happiness may be secured by performing 
the various ceremonies connected with public 
worship, bathing in the sacred river, or even by 
silent meditation and fasting. All who die in 
this holy place are saved." 

The Buddhist plan of salvation, by which Nir- 
vana — which means a blowing out, an extinction, 
an annihilation — is attained, consists of eight 
parts : 

1. Right faith, or orthodoxy. 

2. Right judgment, dispersing all uncertainty and 
doubt. 

3. Right language, or the study of perfect and un- 
swerving truthfulness. 

4. Right purpose, or the choice of an upright pur- 
pose in all words and deeds. 



132 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

5. Right practice, or the pursuit of a religious life. 

6. Right obedience, or the following of all the pre- 
cepts of the Buddhist law. 

7. Right memory. 

8. Right meditation. 

Edwin Arnold, in his "Light of Asia," repre- 
sents Buddha as teaching that the way of salva- 
tion consists of four stages. 

The first stage embraces an eight-fold path, 
as follows : 

1. Right Doctrine. 

2. Right Purpose. 

3. Right Discourse. 

4. Right Behavior. 

5. Right Purity. 

6. Right Thought. 

7. Right Loneliness. 

8. Right Rapture. 

Buddha goes on to say, according to Mr. Ar- 
nold: 

"Who standeth at the Second Stage, made free 

From doubts, delusions, and the inward strife, 
Lord of all lusts, quit of the priests and books, 
Shall live but one more life. 

"Yet onward lies the Third Stage: purged and pure 

Hath grown the stately spirit here, hath risen 
To love all living things in perfect peace. 
His life at end, life's prison 



SALVATION THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS 133 

"Is broken. Nay, there are who surely pass 

Living and visible to utmost goal 
By Fourth Stage of the Holy Ones — the Buddha — 
And they of stainless souls. 

"Lo ! like fierce foes slain by some warrior, 

Ten sins along these stages lie in dust, 
The love of Self, False Faith, and Doubt are three, 
Two more — Hatred and Lust. 

"Who of these five is conqueror hath trod 

Three stages out of Four ; yet there abide 
The Love of Life on earth, Desire for Heaven, 
Self- Praise, Error, and Pride. 

"As one who stands on yonder snowy horn, 

Having naught o'er him but the boundless blue, 
So, these sins being slain the man is come 
Nirvana's verge unto." 

How complicated, how terrible, how impos- 
sible the way! And yet Buddhism is probably 
the highest of all heathen religions. 

But not only is the idea of salvation by works 
found in heathen lands. It is found, alas, among 
Christian people as well. It was that which 
actuated Simon, the Stylite, in the fourth century 
to build him a pillar upon which he stood for 
thirty long years, through winter's cold and sum- 
mer's heat, subsisting only upon what supersti- 
tious people brought to him. That idea was in 
the minds of those who used to live in dens and 
caves of the forests, subsisting upon roots and 



134 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

herbs. It was in the minds of those who used to 
scourge themselves with whips of small cords 
until the blood would start at every stroke they 
gave. It is in the minds of many people now^, 
who believe that if they exercise the qualities of 
justice and mercy and peace and truth and 
charity, if they live moral lives, they will be saved. 
They believe in salvation by mathematics, that 
their good deeds are put over against their bad 
deeds, and if the proportion of good deeds is 
so much as to preponderate over the bad deeds, 
they will be saved. 

But let me say with all possible earnestness 
and vigor that not one of these things I have 
mentioned, not all of these things combined, can 
have any effect upon the salvation of the soul. 
Listen : "By grace have ye been saved through 
faith : and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of 
God ; not of works, that no man should glory" 
(Eph. 2:8,9). If we could save ourselves by 
our own works, we should have occasion to be 
proud and boastful. We could stand in the very 
presence of God in Heaven and brag about how 
we have saved ourselves, and say to him, "I do 
not owe any honor or any glory to you for my 
salvation, but all the honor and all the glory 
belong to me" Not of works, that no man 
should glory." Grace means the unmerited favor 
of God. It excludes works on our part, and so 
excludes boasting. 



SALVATION THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS 135 

Again Paul says : "But if it is by grace, it is 
no more of works : otherwise grace is no more 
grace" (Rom. n : 6). He is talking here about 
election, which leads to regeneration and salva- 
tion. If you could save yourself by your own 
works, then your salvation would not be of grace, 
you would be under no obligations to God for it, 
but all the honor would belong to you and not to 
God, and, as I have just said, you could come 
before God and boast in his presence of having 
saved yourself. Hear Paul again : "Where 
then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what 
manner of law ? Of works ? Nay : but by a 
law of faith. We reckon therefore that a man is 
justified by faith apart from the works of the 
law" (Rom. 3:27,28). Again: "For if Abra- 
ham was justified by works, he hath whereof to 
glory; but not toward God. For what saith the 
Scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it 
was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now 
to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned 
as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that work- 
eth not } but believeth on him that justifieth the 
ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. 
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had 
while he was in uncircumcision : that he might 
be the father of all them that believe, though 
they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness 
might be reckoned unto them" (Rom. 4: 2-5, 11). 



136 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

And again : "What shall we say then ? That the 
Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, 
attained to righteousness, even the righteousness 
which is of faith : but Israel, following after a 
law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 
Wherefore ? Because they sought it not by faith, 
but as it were by works. They stumbled at the 
stone of stumbling ; even as it is written, Behold, 
I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of 
offense : And he that believeth on him shall not 
be put to shame" (Rom. 9:30-33). 

These passages are all in Romans. I give 
some quotations also from the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians, where the same thought of salvation by 
grace through faith, not of works, is expressed 
and argued by Paul. Says he: "Yet knowing 
that a man is not justified by the works of the 
law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we 
believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justi- 
fied by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the 
law: because by the works of the law shall no 
flesh be justified. I do not make void the grace 
of God : for if righteousness is through the law, 
then Christ died for naught" (Gal. 2 : 16, 21). In 
the third chapter of the Epistle, he discusses the 
matter at length. He says : "This only would 
I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the 
works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are 
ye so foolish ? having begun in the Spirit, are ye 
now perfected in the flesh? Did ye suffer so 



SALVATION THROUGH FAITH, NOT WORKS 137 

many things in vain ? if it be indeed in vain. He 
therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and 
worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the 
works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reck- 
oned unto him for righteousness. Know, there- 
fore, they that are of faith, the same are sons of 
Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that 
God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached 
the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, 
In thee shall the nations be blessed. So then 
they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful 
Abraham. For as many as are of the works of 
the law are under a curse: for it is written, 
Cursed is every one who continueth not in all 
things that are written in the book of the law, to 
do them. Now that no man is justified by the 
law before God, is evident : for, The righteous 
shall live by faith ; and the law is not of faith ; 
but, He that doeth them shall live in them. Christ 
redeemed us from the curse of the law, having 
become a curse for us ; for it is written, Cursed 
is everyone that hangeth on a tree : that upon the 
Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in 
Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise 
of the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3 : 2-14). And 
again in the same chapter he says, "Is the law 
then against the promises of God ? God forbid : 
for if there had been a law given which could 
make alive, verily righteousness would have been 



138 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



of the law. But the scripture shut up all things 
under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus 
Christ might be given to them that believe. But 
before faith came, we were kept in ward under 
the law, shut up unto the faith which should after- 
wards be revealed. So that the law is become 
our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might 
be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, 
we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all 
sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For 
as many of you as were baptized into Christ did 
put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor 
Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there 
can be no male and female ; for ye are all one 
man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to prom- 
ise" (Gal. 3:21-29). I do not see how the doc- 
trine of salvation through faith, not of works, 
could possibly be taught more plainly or strongly 
than in these passages. 



LETTER NO. 10 



SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH, NOT OF 
WORKS BAPTISM. 

My Dear Son : — With strange inconsistency 
some people limit the works which they say are 
necessary to salvation to one work — baptism*. 
They constantly quote James 2 : 26, "Faith apart 
from works is dead/' to prove that it is necessary 
to be baptized in order to be saved. They forget 
that what James says is "faith apart from 
works'" not "faith apart from work is 
dead." The word is plural, not singular. It 
does not mean one kind of work, but all kinds of 
works. It cannot be limited to one kind. Bap- 
tism is an important matter, but who has the 
authority to say that it is the one work which 
God requires for salvation, if he requires any? 
But there are others who, seeing the logical out- 
come of their doctrine that faith must complete 
itself by works in order to salvation, boldly take 
the position that if a person stops with baptism, 
he will be damned, that he has got to add to his 
faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, 
godliness, brotherly kindness and charity, to at- 
tend upon the services of the sanctuary whenever 

(139) 



140 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

practicable, to take the communion in remem- 
brance of Christ, to study his Bible, pray and do. 
the whole duty which Christ requires of him, and 
then if he holds out faithfully to the end, he will 
be saved. 

But I should like to ask, Who then can be 
saved ? If a person starts out on the line of try- 
ing to save himself by works, he cannot stop half 
way. He must go the whole way. Here is what 
Paul says about it : "For as many as are of the 
works of the law are under a curse : for it is 
written, Cursed is every one who continueth not 
in all things that are written in the book of the 
law, to do them" (Gal. 3:10). Let me repeat 
the last clause: "Cursed is everyone who con- 
tinueth not in all things that are written 
in the book of the law, to do them." It does not 
say, "Cursed is every one who continueth not in 
some one thing which is written in the 
book of the law to do it" but "in all things.'' 
He must do everything required of him by the 
law. Listen to James — James, whom some peo- 
ple are fond of quoting as the Apostle of Works. 
He says: "For whosoever shall keep the whole 
law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become 
guilty of all 3 ' (James 2: 10). He does not need 
to break all the law; in fact, he may keep the 
whole law. And yet if he slips in just one point, 
he is gone. This is true with our human laws. 
A man does not need to violate all the laws of the 



SALVATION NOT BY BAPTISM 141 

State in order to become a law-breaker and to 
be arrested and punished. If he simply violates 
one law, he will soon run up against the sheriff 
and the jail and the judge and the jury and the 
penitentiary, and maybe the gallows. 

But is it not necessary that one obey in 
order to be saved? Does not the Epistle to the 
Hebrews say that Christ "became the author of 
eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him?" 
Certainly, but the question comes, what kind of 
obedience is meant? Is it external or internal 
obedience, an obedience in action or an obedience 
in heart ? Said Paul : "But thanks be to God, 
that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became 
obedient from the heart to that form of teaching 
whereunto ye were delivered ,, (Rom. 6:17). 
True obedience is necessarily obedience of the 
heart. It is inward, not outward. Obedience of 
the body without obedience of the heart is not 
real obedience at all. And if you have an obe- 
dience from the heart, you have the essence of 
obedience, even if there be no outward manifesta- 
tion in action. 

Besides, it is not your obedience that saves 
you, but Christ's obedience. Hear Paul: "For 
as through the one man's disobedience the many 
were made sinners, even so through the obedience 
of the one shall the many be made righteous" 
(Rom. 5:19). Notice that he says, "For as 
through the one man's disobedience — Adam — 



142 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



the many were made sinners, even so through 
the obedience of the one — of one, of one, of one/' 
and that one Christ Jesus — "shall the many be 
made righteous/' I should like to burn that 
verse into the conscience of every man and 
woman and child in this land, and especially I 
should like to impress it upon the heart of every 
one who is trying to save himself by his own 
obedience. Poor, foolish slave! It is not his 
obedience, but Christ's that saves him. I believe 
in obedience, of course, but in the obedience 
which is the result and not the cause of salvation, 
in the obedience of the child and not of the slave. 
The free, glad, voluntary obedience of the child 
to his father is a beautiful thing, but the hard, 
cold obedience of the slave to his master, driven 
to his task under the compulsion of the lash, is 
terrible. 

Notice, too, that all obedience must spring out 
of relationship — of child to parent, servant to 
master, subject to sovereign, etc. Only such 
relationship gives the right to command, on the 
one hand, or imposes the duty to obey, on the 
other hand. Obedience also is not in order to be- 
come a child, or a servant, or a subject, but be- 
cause of being such. Obedience does not 
make the person a child, or a servant, or a sub- 
ject. It shows him to be a child or a servant or a 
subject. 



SALVATION NOT BY BAPTISM 143 

But it is said, Does not a person have to do 
his duty in order to be saved? 

No, emphatically no. It was exactly because 
we did not and could not do our duty, because 
we were sinful, that it became necessary for 
Christ to come into the world and die for us. If 
we could have done our duty, there would have- 
been no need for him. As a matter of fact, there 
are none of us who do our duty. And so our 
sins are continually piling up against us — piling 
up wrath against the day of wrath. But even if 
from this time on we could do our duty perfectly, 
then our past sins would stand out against us. 
What is to become of them ? How are they to be 
wiped away ? There is no such thing as works of 
supererogation. Even if we could do our full 
duty, we cannot do more than our duty. Hear 
the words of Jesus : "Even so ye also, when ye 
shall have done all the things that are commanded 
you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have 
done that which it was our duty to do" (Luke 17 : 
10). Yes, after we have done all those things 
which are commanded of us, after we have done 
that which it was our duty to do, we must still 
say we are unprofitable servants. 

The person who starts out on the line of trying 
to save himself by his own works, by obedience to 
the law, by doing his duty, reminds me of a 
blind horse on a tread mill. Here he goes round 
and round, and round and round again, a cease- 



144 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

less, weary round, and always coming back to 
the place from which he started. Or he reminds 
me of the mythological character, Sisyphus, who 
was condemned to roll a stone up the side of a 
mountain; and every time, when he had nearly 
reached the top, it would slip from his grasp and 
go tumbling down to the bottom again, and he 
would have to go back and begin his task anew. 
And here is a person trying to roll the stone of 
duty up the side of the mountain of salvation. 
And if ever he gets near the top — and I don't 
believe he will — everytime it will slip from his 
grasp and go tumbling down to the bottom, and 
he will have the whole thing to go over again. It 
is a terrible piece of business. 

No galley slave chained to his bench ever 
had a harder lot in life than this person. No 
Egyptian taskmaster, no Southern overseer in 
times of slavery, was ever more ruthless in driv- 
ing those under him to their tasks than is this 
master under whom he has placed himself — this 
master of salvation by works, salvation by obe- 
dience, salvation by duty. 

This was what Peter meant when he said, 
"Now, therefore, why make ye trial of God, that 
ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disci- 
ples which neither our fathers nor we were able 
to bear?" (Acts 15:10). And those who are 
insisting upon salvation by works, or by obe- 
dience, or by duty, are doing that very thing, put- 



SALVATION NOT BY BAPTISM 145 

ting a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which 
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. It 
was to break that yoke that Christ came, to give 
us liberty from its galling power. Listen to Paul 
again : "For' freedom did Christ set us free ; 
stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again 
in a yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5 : 1)— the yoke of 
bondage to the law, of bondage to obedience, of 
bondage to duty. Paul continues : "Behold, I 
Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circum- 
cision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I tes- 
tify again to every man that receiveth circumcis- 
ion, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal. 
5 : 2, 3). Paul means to say that if those Gala- 
tians should cease trusting in Christ for their 
salvation and should depend upon circumcision, 
if they should cease to rely upon faith and should 
depend rather upon obedience to the law, Christ 
would profit them nothing. They had no use 
for Christ. But on the contrary, if that was the 
way they proposed to be saved, by obedience to 
the law, they could not stop with obedience in 
one respect, but must obey in every respect, and 
so Christ would become of no effect to them. 
There would be no room for him in their plan 
of salvation. "He came not to call the righteous, 
but sinners to repentance." He came "to save 
sinners" — not those who in their self-righteous- 
ness were relying upon their own good works, 

their own obedience for salvation. 
10 



146 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

And it is impossible to be saved by Christ and 
obedience both. Christ has obeyed the law in 
your stead and he offers salvation through his 
obedience. If you accept it by trusting your sal- 
vation to him, he will save you. But if you hesi- 
tate about it and insist upon trying to save your- 
self, then he will have nothing to do with it. 
Your salvation must be all by Christ or all by self. 
It must be all of grace or all of works. There is 
no mixing the two. And if you try to justify 
yourself by the law, then you have fallen away 
from grace — you have left off grace and have 
gone to trying to save yourself by your own 
obedience. 

I have frequently asked the question of those 
who say that salvation is a matter of works or 
of obedience or of duty, "What is the use for 
Christ under your system ?" I have never had 
a satisfactory answer to the question. I know 
the answer is given that Christ died to make it 
possible for us to save ourselves. But that is 
absurd. If we could have saved ourselves, there 
would have been no need for Christ to die, and 
if we could save ourselves at all, we could have 
done so as well before Christ came as afterwards. 
And it does not make any particular difference 
whether the law referred to means the moral law 
or that of Christ. If salvation is now a matter 
of obedience to the law of Christ, then the coming 
of Christ simply transferred the obedience from 



SALVATION NOT BY BAPTISM 147 

the law of God the Father to the law of God the 
Son, if we can make any such distinction — from 
the laws of the old dispensation to the laws of 
the new, from those of the Old Testament to 
those of the New, from the commandments given 
by God on Mt. Sinai through Moses to the com- 
mandments given by Christ or by John the Bap- 
tist or Paul. Listen to Paul again : "Yet know- 
ing that a man is not justified by the works of 
the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even 
we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be 
justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works 
of the law : because by the works of the law 
shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16). And 
Paul adds in verse 21, "I do not make void the 
grace of God" when I thus propose to be justified 
by faith in Christ and not by the works of the 
law, "for if righteousness is through the law, 
then Christ died for nought." If righteousness, 
if Tightness, if salvation, is a matter of obedience 
to the law — whether the ceremonial law or the 
moral law or the law of Christ — a matter of 
doing one's duty, a matter of works, then there 
was no use for Christ to have died, and he might 
have been spared that magnificent sacrifice of 
himself. 

This doctrine of salvation by works, or by 
obedience, or by duty, cuts the very heart out of 
the gospel. It squeezes all of the blood out of 
it and leaves it only a bare and grinning skeleton. 



148 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

It puts Christianity essentially on a level with 
Judaism or with Buddhism, with the only differ- 
ence that Christians are to obey the laws of 
Christ instead of the laws of Moses, or of 
Buddha. It is simply a difference in laws. How 
low a conception ! How degrading to Christian- 
ity! But Paul said that, "For Christ is the end 
of the law unto righteousness to every one that 
believeth" (Rom. 10: 4). When one has believed 
on Christ, he has fulfilled the law. He has re- 
ceived righteousness, or rightness, or salvation. 
That is the end of all controversy about it. It set- 
tles the matter. The law has no further claims on 
the person. There is nothing more to be said, 
and when the person has thus believed on Christ, 
then he can sing : 

"My hope is built on nothing less 
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness; 
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, 
But wholly lean on Jesus' name; 
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand ; 
All other ground is sinking sand. 

"When darkness veils His lovely face, 
I rest on His unchanging grace ; 
In every high and stormy gale 
My anchor holds within the veil. 
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand ; 
All other ground is sinking sand. 



SALVATION NOT BY BAPTISM 149 

"His oath, His covenant and blood, 
Support me in the whelming flood; 
When all around my soul gives way, 
He then is all my hope and stay. 
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand ; 
All other ground is sinking sand/' 



LETTER NO. 1 1 



FAITH AND WORKS. 

My Dear Son : — But there are some who say 
that works are necessary to complete faith. They 
quote the saying of Jesus, "Faith without works 
is dead!' They believe, they say, in salvation 
by faith; but contend that until faith has ex- 
pressed itself in works, it is not real faith. This 
brings up the question of the relation of faith and 
works. It is sometimes insisted that there is a 
discrepancy between Paul and James on this 
point, that Paul says salvation is by faith, while 
James says it is by works. On the one hand, 
Paul says, "Being therefore justified by faith, 
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ" (Rom. 5:1). On the other hand, James 
says : "Ye see that by works a man is justified, 
and not only by faith" (James 2:24). Paul 
says: "For what saith the Scripture? And 
Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned 
unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). But 
James says: "Was not Abraham our father justi- 
fied by his works in that he offered Isaac his son 
upon the altar?" (James 2: 21.) How do you 
reconcile these passages ? 

(150) 



FAITH AND WORKS 



151 



Whatever else they may mean, please under- 
stand that there is no conflict between Paul and 
James. The fact that they were both divinely 
inspired by the Holy Spirit would prevent any 
such conflict. Then, as a matter of fact, Paul 
believed in works. He said very distinctly, "For 
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any- 
thing, nor uncircumcision ; but faith working 
through love" (Gal. 5:6). He here insists upon 
a "faith which worketh." He says also that 
Christ "gave himself for us, that he might redeem 
us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a 
people for his own possession, zealous of good 
works" (Titus 2:14). In the same Epistle to 
Titus, he writes : "Faithful is the saying, and 
concerning these things I desire that thou affirm 
confidently, to the end that they who have be- 
lieved God may be careful to maintain good 
works. These things are good and profitable unto 
men" (Titus 3:8). And again: "And let our 
people also learn to maintain good works for 
necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful" 
(Titus 3:14). Even in the famous passage 
which I have quoted heretofore, immediately fol- 
lowing the words, "For by grace have ye been 
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, 
it is the gift of God ; not of works, that no man 
should glory," he adds, "for we are his workman- 
ship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, 
which God afore prepared that we should walk 



152 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

in them" (Eph.2 :8-io). "Created in Christ Jesus 
for good works." We are first created in him by 
faith, but the very purpose of our creation in 
Christ was that we might bring forth good 
works. In the Epistle to the Hebrews he wrote, 
"And let us consider one another to provoke unto 
love and good works" (Heb. 10:24). 

And so James believed in faith. He simply 
insisted upon the same thing that Paul did, "faith 
which worketh by love." This is the mean- 
ing of all that he said in the second chapter of his 
Epistle upon the subject of works, the sum of 
which is expressed in the last verse : "For as the 
body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith 
apart from works is dead" (James 2:26). It is 
not true, however, that the absence of works 
makes the faith dead. It only shows the 
faith to be dead. This passage corresponds with 
the saying of the Master, "By their fruits ye 
shall know them." The fruits do not make 
the tree. They show the tree. Works do not 
make the Christian. They show the Chris- 
tian. The life is not in the fruits. The life is in 
the roots, and the fruits, the flowering- out, are 
only the expression of that life. And so the life 
is not in the works, but in the faith, and the 
works are only the fruitage, the flowering out, 
the expression of that life. 

This was what James meant when he said of 
Abraham, "Was not Abraham our father justified 



FAITH AND WORKS 153 

by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son 
upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought 
with his works, and by works was faith made 
perfect" (James 2:21,22). This is what he 
meant also when he said : "Ye see that by works 
a man is justified, and not only by faith" (James 
2:24). Compare with this, Hebrews 11:31: 
"By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with 
them that were disobedient, having received the 
spies with peace." Rahab had been a harlot 
and was still known as such, but she had repented 
and believed, and at the opportunity given her 
she showed her faith by her works. 

But does not the Bible say that God "will ren- 
der to every man according to his works" (Rom. 
2:6)? Yes, but what does that mean ? In 
Revelation 20: 12, John says: "And I saw the 
dead, the great and the small, standing before the 
throne ; and books were opened : and another book 
was opened, which is the book of life : and the 
dead were judged out of the things which were 
written in the books, according to their works." 
Notice that there were two sets of books open. 
One was the "book of life." In that book are 
written the names of all who have believed in 
Christ. See John 3 : 16, John 3 : 36, and numer- 
ous other similar passages, which have hereto- 
fore been quoted. If the names of any are not 
written in the book of life, they will be written 
in the book of death. Such persons will not be 



154 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

saved, but lost. They will come under the con- 
demnation of the law which says, "The soul that 
sinneth it shall die." But if the names of any are 
written in the book of life, they are saved and 
saved forevermore. And yet they are making 
records. And those records are being kept in the 
books. And those books will be opened after a 
while. And they will be " judged out of the 
things which were written in the books, according 
to their works," and will receive higher or lower 
rewards in Heaven according to their deeds on 
earth. 

With this passage corresponds i Cor. 3 : 11-15 : 
"For other foundation can no man lay than that 
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any 
man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, 
costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man's 
work shall be made manifest : for the day shall 
declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the 
fire itself shall prove each man's work of what 
sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which 
he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If 
any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer 
loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as 
through fire." 

According to the above passage, every one 
who builds upon the foundation of Jesus Christ 
shall be saved. But upon that foundation he 
rears a superstructure of character; and into 
that superstructure he puts different material, 



FAITH AND WORKS 155 

gold, silver, costly stones ; wood, hay, and stubble. 
After a while, on the day, that day for which 
all other days were made, the judgment day, he 
must present his structure to the Master Archi- 
tect of the universe for inspection. And the fire 
of His judgment shall try every man's work of 
what sort it is. If he has put in gold and silver 
and costly stones, they will not burn, but will 
stand the test of fire. He shall receive a reward 
in proportion to his work. He shall have a higher 
or lower seat in Heaven. Every one will be per- 
fectly happy, but there will be a difference of 
capacity. Some will be prepared to enjoy more 
of Heaven than others. Every one's cup will be 
full, but some cups will be larger than others. 
If, however, any man has put in wood and hay 
and stubble, these shall be burned and he will 
suffer loss, but he '"himself shall be saved," be- 
cause he has built upon the foundation of Christ. 
Yet he shall be saved, "so as through fire" — like 
a man rushing out of a burning house, saved him- 
self but losing much of the material of the build- 
ing which he had been erecting so carefully. 

The relation between faith and works then 
is this : Faith is the root and works the fruit ; 
faith the antecedent and works the consequent; 
faith the cause and works the effect; faith the 
engine and works the train of cars; faith the 
fountain and works the stream flowing from it. 



LETTER NO. 12 



BAPTISM ITS FORM ; WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. 

My Dear Son : — I have shown you as simply 
and as fully as possible what you need to do to be 
saved. Now after you are saved, then what? 
Well, the first thing you want to do is to express 
the fact of your salvation in some way. That 
was the way I felt. I was a boy, a little older 
than you are now. A protracted meeting had 
been held in Brownsville, my home. The pastor, 
Rev. R. W. Norton, one of the saintliest men I 
ever knew, was assisted by the large-bodied, 
large-hearted Dr. J. F. B. Mays, then pastor of 
the First Baptist Church, Jackson. There were 
a good many who professed conversion, just how 
many I do not now remember. I recollect dis- 
tinctly, though, that I was one of them. I was 
not a very bad boy. I had been reared by Chris- 
tian parents, for which I can never be too thank- 
ful. I had been going to Sunday school, as I 
told you, almost from infancy. But I was a 
sinner — not an open, violent sinner, but a sinner, 
and I knew it. I felt it. I had gone forward 
with others to what they called "the mourners' 
bench." I love the mourners' bench. I was con- 

(156) 



BAPTISM — ITS FORM 157 

verted there. I could not help loving it. I was 
weeping. A friend, Iverson Branham, came and 
talked to me. I have forgotten everything he said 
except one. That one thing I have never forgotten, 
and shall never forget through time or through 
eternity. It was the simple question: "Edgar, 
can't you trust Jesus?" Under the power of the 
Holy Spirit that question was the arrow to carry 
conversion to my heart, and I said in my heart, 
"Why, yes, I can trust Jesus. If I can't trust 
Jesus, whom can I trust?" I reached out my 
hand and put it in the hand of my friend in token 
of the fact that I could and did trust Jesus. And 
as I put my hand in the hand of my friend, I put 
it in the hand of my Greater Friend. And he 
took hold of it, and, bless God, he has been hold- 
ing on to it ever since. 

I wanted to tell somebody about how I had 
found Jesus precious to me. I wanted to tell 
everybody about it. I wanted the world to know 
it. But I could not tell it. I was a boy. My 
tongue was feeble. How could I tell it? Well, 
a way had been arranged. There were twenty- 
two of us, seventeen girls and five boys, who 
came before the Baptist church in Brownsville 
and told our "experience of grace" — that is, the 
story of our conversion — to the church, as best 
we could. But there was a more public and a 
more expressive way than that of telling it. We 



158 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

were accepted by the church as "candidates for 
baptism/' 

And so it came to pass that on that calm, beau- 
tiful afternoon in September, 1869, a thousand 
or more people assembled on the banks of the Big 
Hatchie River, to witness the baptism. Then 
occurred the scene of which I told you in my first 
letter. Mr. Norton, the preacher, led us down 
into the river and one by one dipped us under 
in the water and raised us up out of the water. 
This was called baptism. This was the initiatory 
rite by which we proclaimed to the assembled 
multitudes on the river bank that we had become 
Christians, or followers of Christ. Now, two 
questions come : 1 . Why did the preacher bap- 
tize in that way? 2. Why did he baptize at all? 
In other words, what is the Form of baptism, and 
what is its Design? Let us answer these ques- 
tions. 

THE FORM OF BAPTISM. 

There are three acts which are said by differ- 
ent people to constitute the proper form for bap- 
tism — immersion in water, pouring water on the 
head, sprinkling with water. Let us see which 
is correct. Turn to your Bible. Read again the 
account of Christ's baptism, of which I spoke in 
my first letter: 

"And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preach- 
ing in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye; for 



BAPTISM — ITS FORM 1&9 

the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Now John himself 
had his raiment of earners hair, and a leathern girdle 
about his loins ; and his food was locusts and wild 
honey. Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all 
Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan. 
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto 
John, to be baptized of him. But John would have 
hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of 
thee, and comest thou to me? But Jesus answering 
said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us 
to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway 
from the water : and lo, the heavens were opened unto 
him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a 
dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the 
heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased." (Matt. 3: 1, 2, 4, 5, 13-17-) 

This is the account given by Matthew, Now 
read Mark's account of the same scene : 

"John came, who baptized in the wilderness and 
preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of 
sins. And there went out unto him all the country 
of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were 
baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their 
sins. And John was clothed with camel's hair, and 
had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat 
locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, 
There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the 
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down 
and unloose. I baptize you in water; but he shall bap- 
tize you in the Holy Spirit. And it came to pass in 
those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, 
and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straight- 
way coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens 



160 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending 
upon him : and a voice came out of the heavens, Thou 
art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." (Mark 
1:4-11.) 

Luke says simply : 

"Now it came to pass, when all the people were 
baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and 
praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit 
descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and 
a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; 
in thee I am well pleased." (Luke 3: 21, 22.) 

Notice, Matthew says that Jesus came "to 
the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." 
The Jordan is a river, about the size of the Big 
Hatchie River in West Tennessee, in which I 
was baptized. John was baptizing there, and 
Jesus went to him there to be baptized. Do you 
suppose John would have considered it necessary 
to go to a river, if he was only going to pour 
water on people or sprinkle them ? Would Jesus 
have considered it necessary to go all the way 
from Nazareth to the River Jordan, to have water 
poured on his head or to be sprinkled ? If those 
of us who were baptized at Brownsville were 
simply going to have water poured on us or to be 
sprinkled, do you suppose we would have gone to 
the Big Hatchie River, five miles away, for the 
purpose? Would we not have been regarded as 
foolish if we had done so ? It was a good deal of 



BAPTISM — ITS FORM 161 

trouble to go so far. We did so only because we 
were going to be immersed, and there was enough 
water in the river for that purpose, and not 
enough in Brownsville, there being no baptistery 
in the Baptist church, as there is now. It was 
certainly a good deal of trouble for Jesus to go 
so far "to be baptized." If he had simply been 
going to have water poured on him or to be 
sprinkled, he might have sent for John to come 
to Nazareth. But he did not. He went "from 
Galilee to the Jordan unto John to be baptized of 
him." The reason why John was baptizing in 
the Jordan is explained by a remark which John 
the Evangelist makes about John the Baptist: 
"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to 
Salim, because there wees much water there!' 
(John 3 : 23.) It required "much water" for his 
business of baptizing. It does not take much 
water either for pouring or sprinkling. It does 
for immersion. 

Notice, too, that "Jesus, when he was baptized, 
went up straightway from the zvater" indicating 
that he had been into the water. If it is claimed 
that the expression in Matthew would simply indi- 
cate that Jesus had been to, but not into the water, 
then I refer the person making such claim to the 
parallel passage in Mark, where it is said that 
Jesus "was baptized of John in the Jordan. And 
straightway coming up out of the water." This 

is the same scene Mark is describing as the one 
11 



162 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

described by Matthew. Mark leaves no room for 
doubt as to what he meant, and that leaves no 
room for doubt as to what Matthew meant. It 
is sometimes said that the Greek preposition used 
in Matthew in speaking of Jesus coming from 
the water, apo, means simply away from, which 
does not imply that he had been in the water. 
But the Greek preposition used in Mark to 
describe the same scene is ek, which means out of, 
and necessarily implies that he had been down 
into the water. Apo may or may not imply that 
he had been into the water. Ek necessarily does 
so imply. Mark simply explains and reinforces 
Matthew, leaving no room for doubt as to the 
meaning of both. 

Here is another passage which will throw a 
good deal of light on the point. "And as they 
went on the way, they came unto a certain water ; 
and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water ; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized? And he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still : and they both 
went down into the water, both Philip and the 
eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they 
came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord 
caught away Philip ; and the eunuch saw him 
no more, for he went on his way rejoicing." 
(Acts 8: 36, 38, 39). Notice how clearly and 
strongly Luke here brings out the facts that 
Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water" 



BAPTISM ITS FORM 163 

and that "they came up out of the water." Luke 
thus reinforces Matthew and Mark. 

Paul says : "We were buried therefore with 
him through baptism into death : that like as 
Christ was raised from the dead through the 
glory of the Father, so we also might walk in 
newness of life." (Romans 6: 4.) And again: 
"Having been buried with him in baptism, where- 
in ye were also raised with him through faith in 
the working of God, who raised him from the 
dead." (Col. 2: 12.) Do you know how they 
bury people ? By standing them up and pouring 
a shovel full of dirt over them or sprinkling a 
little dirt on their foreheads ? Oh, no ! They lay 
them down in the grave and cover them up, im- 
merse them in the dirt. How, then, are people 
buried by baptism? Not by pouring or sprink- 
ling water upon them, but by immersing them in 
the water. That is the only way. 

Thus Paul reinforces Matthew 7 and Mark and 
Luke, and all show beyond a doubt that the act 
of baptism is an immersion, not a pouring or 
sprinkling. 



LETTER NO. 13 



BAPTISM ITS FORM j WHAT SCHOLARS SAY. 

My Dear Son : — Let us see what the word 
baptize means. As you know, perhaps, it comes 
from a Greek word. This was not, however, 
translated, but simply transferred in the English 
translation of the Bible — that is, the translators 
did not give the meaning of the Greek word, but 
retained the word itself, only giving it an English 
form. This carries us back, then, to the Greek, 
and raises the question as to the meaning of the 
Greek word. Let us see what scholars say about 
it. The Greek form of the word is baptizo, the 
English translators simply changing the final 
letter "o" to "e." What, then, does baptizo mean 
in Greek? Notice that the root of the word, 
"bap" is very similar to our English word "dip" 
Dr. John A Broadus, the great teacher, suggests 
in his commentary on Matthew that they were 
derived from the same source originally and mean 
essentially the same — that is, baptizo means to 
dip, or to immerse. 

Here is what some of the principal lexicons 
say about it: Liddell and Scott define it "to dip 
in or under the water." They were Episcopalians, 
not Baptists. Prof. J. H. Thayer, in his Greek- 

(164) 



BAPTISM — WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 165 

English Lexicon of the New Testament, says : 
"Baptizo, to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to sub- 
merge. In the New Testament it is used particu- 
larly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted 
by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's com- 
mand received by Christians and adjusted to the 
nature and contents of their religion, viz. : an 
immersion in water." Under baptisma he says, 
"a word peculiar to the New Testament and eccle- 
siastical writers, immersion, submersion." 

Prof. E. A. Sophocles, a native Greek, and for 
thirty-eight years Professor of Greek in Harvard 
University, defines baptizo, "to dip, to immerse, 
to sink. There is no evidence that Luke and 
Paul and the other writers of the New Testament 
put upon this verb meanings not recognized by 
the Greeks." Cremer, Biblico-Theological Greek 
Lexicon of the New Testament: "Baptizo, to 
immerse, to submerge. The peculiar New Testa- 
ment and Christian use of the word to denote 
immersion, submersion for a religious purpose — 
baptize." Dr. J. T. Christian, in his splendid 
book, "Immersion," gives the testimony of 
twenty-four Greek lexicons as to the meaning of 
baptizo, every one of which gives the primary 
idea of dipping. Bishop John J. Keane, Presi- 
dent of the Catholic University of America, 
Washington, D. C, says : "The best dictionaries 
show the classical meaning of the Greek word 
baptizein is primarily to plunge, to dip." 



166 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Moses Stuart, the late eminent Congregational 
scholar of Andover : "Bapto and baptizo mean to 
dip, to plunge, to immerse into anything liquid. 
All lexicographers and critics of any note are 
agreed in this." 

Dr. Christian then quotes thirty-three classical 
Greek authors, giving fifty-six examples of the 
use of the word baptizo, or the shorter, but kin- 
dred form, bapto. These authors cover a period 
of over sixteen hundred years, commencing with 
Pindar, B. C. 522, and ending with Eustathius in 
the eleventh century A. D. The invariable mean- 
ing of the word in all of these passages is to dip, 
or some word which conveys the same idea. So 
clear is this that Prof. Stuart says : "It is impos- 
sible to doubt that the words bapto and baptizo 
have, in the Greek classical writers, the sense of 
dip, plunge, immerse, sink, etc. ,, This fact is 
now admitted by scholars of all denominations, 
Pedo-baptist as well as Baptist, those who practice 
sprinkling and pouring as well as those who prac- 
tice only immersion for baptism. I can give only 
a few testimonies from these scholars. Dr. 
Christian has gathered a great many in the book 
to which I have referred. 

The Greek Catholic Church. 

Prof. Sophocles, a native Greek, who long ably 
filled the chair of Greek in Harvard University, 



BAPTISM — WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 167 

published a lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 
periods, extending from B.C. 140 to A.D. 
1 100. He defines baptize "to dip, to immerse, 
to sink/' On the New Testament meaning of 
the word, he remarks : "There is no evidence that 
Luke and Paul, and other writers of the New 
Testament, put upon this verb meanings not rec- 
ognized by the Greeks." 

Prof. Timayenis, a native Greek of the Hel- 
lenic Institute, N. Y., in a lecture at Chautauqua, 
in 1881, speaking of the Greek religion, said: 
"The Greeks baptize, of course — they baptize in 
the real way. The Greek word baptizo means 
nothing but immerse in the water. Baptism 
means nothing but immersion. In the Greek 
language we have a different word for sprinkling. 
When you put a piece of wood into the water, 
and cover it entirely, you baptize, you do what is 
expressed by the Greek word baptizo. I am 
ready to discuss this with any divine about the 
Greek word. Sprinkling is not what the Bible 
teaches ; that is a fact that you may depend on." 

Says Dr. Christian : "Here is a church that 
speaks the language that the New Testament was 
written in, a people that have the very words that 
Christ selected to designate the ordinance of bap- 
tism, in constant use. Above all, they have prac- 
ticed immersion since the days of Christ. This 
proof to a candid mind is unanswerable." 



168 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

The Roman Catholic Church. 

Cardinal Gibbons, the foremost Roman Cath- 
olic in the United States, says : 

"For several centuries after the establishment of 
Christianity, baptism was usually conferred by im- 
mersion; but since the twelfth century the practice of 
baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic 
Church, as this manner is attended with less incon- 
venience than baptism by immersion." — Faith of Our 
Fathers, p. 275. 

The eloquent French Catholic preacher, Bishop 
Bossuet, said : 

"It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reforma- 
tion, although some will cavil at it, that baptism was 
instituted by immersing the whole body into water; 
that Jesus Christ received it so, and caused it to be so 
given by his apostles; that the Scripture knows no 
other baptism than this; that antiquity so understood 
and practiced it; that the word itself implies It, to bap- 
tize being the same as to dip. This fact, I say, is 
unanimously acknowledged by all the divines of the 
Reformation, nay, by the Reformers themselves, and 
those even who best understood the Greek language 
and the ancient customs as well of the Jews as Chris- 
tians; by Luther, by Melancthon, by Calvin, by Casau- 
bon, by Grotius, by all the rest, and lately even by 
Jurien, the most contradictory of all ministers. Nay, 
Luther has observed that the German word signifying 
baptism was derived from thence, and this sacrament 
named Taufer, from profundity or depth, because the 
baptized were deeply plunged into water." — Varia. 
Protest., col. 2, p. 370. 



BAPTISM WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 169 

The Episcopal Church. 

The late Dr. Arthur P. Stanley, Dean of West- 
minster Abbey, and one of the most learned 
Episcopal ministers, says of baptism : 

"Into this society they passed by an act as natural 
as it was expressive. The plunge into the bath of puri- 
fication, long known among the Jewish nation as the 
symbol of a change of life, had been revived with a 
fresh energy by the Essenes, and it received a definite 
signification and impulse from the austere prophet who 
derived his name from the ordinance. This rite was 
retained as the pledge of entrance into a new and uni- 
versal communion. In that early age the scene of the 
transaction was either some deep wayside spring or 
well, as for the Ethiopian; or some rushing river, as 
the Jordan; or some vast reservoir, as at Jericho or 
Jerusalem, whither, as in the Baths of Caracalla at 
Rome, the whole population resorted for swimming or 
washing. The earliest scene of the immersion was in 
the Jordan. That rushing river — the one river of Pal- 
estine — found at last its fit purpose." — Christian Insti- 
tutions, p. 2. 

And again Dean Stanley says : 

"Baptism was not only a bath, but a plunge — an en- 
tire submersion in the deep water, a leap as into the 
rolling sea or the rushing river, where for the moment 
the waves close over the bather's head, and he emerges 
again as from a momentary grave; or it was the shock 
of a shower bath — the rush of water passed over the 
whole person from capacious vessels, so as to wrap 
the recipient as within the vail of a splashing cataract. 
This was the part of the ceremony that the apostles 



170 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

laid so much stress upon. It seemed to them like a 
burial of the old former self, and the rising up again 
of the new self. So St. Paul compared it to the Israel- 
ites passing through the roaring waves of the Red 
Sea, and St. Peter to the passing through the deep 
waters of the flood. 'We are buried/ said St. Paul, 
'with Christ by baptism into his death; that like as 
Christ was raised, thus we also should walk in the 
newness of life/ Baptism, as the entrance into the 
Christian society, was a complete change from the old 
superstitions or restrictions of Judaism, to the free- 
dom and confidence of the gospel; from the idolatries 
and profligacies of the old heathen world to the light 
and purity of Christianity. It was a change effected 
only by the same effort and struggle as that with 
which a strong swimmer or an adventurous diver 
throws himself into the stream and struggles with the 
waves, and comes up with increased energy out of the 
depths of the dark abyss." — Christian Institutions, pp. 
7,8. 

Bishop Ellicott says : 

"Jewish ablutions . . . had nothing in common 
with the figurative act which portrayed through im- 
mersion the complete disappearance of the old na- 
ture, and by emerging again, the beginning of a totally 
new life." — Life of Christ, p. no. 

Dr. C. Geikie says : 

"It was, hence, impossible to see a convert go down 
into a stream, travel-worn, and soiled with dust, and, 
after disappearing for a moment, emerge pure and 
fresh, without feeling that the symbol suited and inter- 
preted a strong craving of the human heart. It was 
no formal rite with John." — Life of Christ, p. 276. 



BAPTISM WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 171 

Dean Alford says : 

"The baptism was administered in the day time, by 
immersion of the whole person." — Gr, N. T., vol. i, 
p. 20. 

The first prayer book of Edward VI reads : 
"First, dipping the right side ; secondly, the left 
side ; third time dipping the face toward the 
font/' The second prayer book of Edward, 1551, 
the first book of Queen Elizabeth, 1559, and that 
of King James, in 1604, all read: "The priest 
shall dip him in the water, discreetly and warily ; 
but if they certify that the child is weak, it shall 
suffice to pour water upon it." This book of 
Edward is the first authentic permission for alter- 
ing the act of baptism in Great Britain, yet Dean 
Stanley asserts that "Edward VI and Elizabeth 
were both immersed/' Christian Institutions, 

P . 18.) 

The present Ritual of the Greek Church 
reads : 

"And when the whole body is anointed, the priest 
immerses him, holding him erect, and looking toward 
the east, saying, the servant of the God is immersed, 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit; now and ever, and to ages of ages. 
Amen. At each invocation bringing him down, and 
bringing him up. And after the immersing, the priest 
washes his hands, singing with the people : Happy they 
whose sins are forgiven, etc." 



172 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Referring to Romans 6: 4, Conybeare and 
Howson, Episcopalians, say: 

"This passage cannot be understood unless it be 
borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by im- 
mersion." — Life and Epistles of Paul, p. 557. 

Canon Farrar, Episcopalian, says : 

"The dipping under the waters of baptism is his 
union with Christ's death; his rising out of the waters 
of baptism is a resurrection with Christ, and the birth 
to a new life." — Life and Works of Paul, p. 362. 

In a letter to Dr. J. T. Christian, Bishop A. 
Cleveland Coxe, of Buffalo, N. Y., says of bap- 
tize* : "The word means to dip," and adds, "I wish 
all Christians would restore the primitive 
practice." 

The Presbyterian Church. 

John Calvin, the father of the Presbyterian 
Church, never failed to testify that baptism was 
an immersion in water. Says he: "The word 
baptize signifies to immerse, and it is certain that 
the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient 
church." (Inst. Book 4, c. 15.) Again, Calvin 
says : "From these words, John 3 : 23, it may be 
inferred that baptism was administered by John 
and Christ, by plunging the whole body under the 
water. Here we perceive how baptism was ad- 



BAPTISM — WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 173 

ministered among the ancients; for they im- 
mersed the whole body in water." 

The great preacher, Richard Baxter, said : "It 
is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, 
as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles' 
time the baptized were dipped overhead in the 
water, and this signified their profession, both 
of believing the burial and the resurrection of 
Christ and of their own renouncing the world 
and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or 
rising again to newness of life, or being buried 
and risen again with Christ, as the Apostle ex- 
pounded in the forecited texts of Colossians and 
Romans." 

The eloquent Dr. Chalmers said that "the 
original meaning of the word baptism is immer- 
sion." 

Lightfoot, a distinguished Presbyterian 
scholar, said : "That the baptism of John was by 
plunging the body seems to appear from those 
things related of him, namely, that he baptized 
in Jordan, that he baptized in Aenon, because 
there was much water there; and that Christ 
being baptized came up out of the water; to 
which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8 : 38." 

Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Church History in the Union Theological Sem- 
inary, New York, says : 

"The baptism of Christ in the river of Jordan, and 
the illustrations of baptism used in the New Testament, 



174 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

are all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as 
is freely admitted by the best exegetes — Catholic and 
Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be 
gained by unnatural exegesis. The aggressiveness of 
the Baptists has driven Pedobaptists to the opposite 
extreme/' — Teach., pp. 55, 56. 

Dr. Schaff again says : 

"The usual form of baptism was by immersion. 
This is inferred from the original of the Greek bap- 
tizein and baptismos; from the analogy of John's bap- 
tism in the Jordan; from the apostle's comparison of 
the sacred rite with the miraculous passage of the 
Red Sea, and the escape of the ark from the flood, 
with a cleansing and refreshing bath, and with burial 
and resurrection; finally, from the general custom of 
the ancient church, which prevails in the East to this 
day." — Christ. Ch. t vol. i, pp. 468, 469. 

So strong was the sentiment for immersion 
as the only baptism among the Presbyterians 
that when the Westminster Assembly of Divines 
met to frame a creed and government for the 
Presbyterian Church, sprinkling was carried 
over immersion by one vote. The vote stood 
twenty-five to twenty-four. By a change of only 
one vote, therefore, the Presbyterians would 
have practiced immersion for baptism instead of 
sprinkling or pouring. 

The Methodist Church. 

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist 
Church, says in his notes on the New Testament, 



: 



BAPTISM — WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 175 

commenting on Romans 6:3: "We are buried 
with him, alluding to the ancient manner of bap- 
tizing by immersion. " In his comment on 
Romans 6:4, he says : "We are buried with 
him by baptism into death. It is probable that 
the apostle alludes to the mode of administering 
baptism by immersion. ,, In his Journal, under 
date of Saturday, February 21, 1736, Mr. Wes- 
ley says : "Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was 
aptized according to the custom of the first 
church, and the rule of the Church of England, 
by immersion/' On the first day of September, 
1737, Mr. Wesley was tried by a grand jury of 
forty- four men, found guilty and ordered to 
leave the country. One charge against him was 
refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child, other- 
wise than by dipping, except the parents would 
certify that it was weak and not able to bear it. 
It is certainly a curious fact that the founder of 
Methodism was tried and found guilty by the 
courts of the land for refusing to sprinkle a 
baby ! But it is a fact, nevertheless. 

Adam Clarke follows Wesley in his admis- 
sions. He says, in reference to the baptism of 
John: 

"That the baptism of John was by plunging the 
body (after the same manner as the washing of un- 
clean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), 
seems to appear from these things that are related of 
him — namely, that he baptized in Jordan, that he bap- 



176 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

tized in Aenon, because there was much water there; 
and that Christ being baptized came up out of the 
water; to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8: 38, 
Philip and the eunuch went down into the water," etc. — 
Com., vol. 3, p. 344. 

On Romans 6 : 4 he says : "It is probable 
that the apostle here alludes to the mode of 
administering baptism by immersion, the whole 
body being put under water, which seems to say, 
the man is drowned, is dead; and when he came 
up out of the water, he seemed to have a resur- 
rection to life, the man is risen again, he is 
alive." 

On Colossians 2: 12, Clarke says: "Allud- 
ing to the immersion practiced in the case of 
adults, wherein the person appeared to be buried 
under the water, as Christ was buried in the 
heart of the earth." 

Here are a few other testimonies: 

Dr. Joseph Lange, old Catholic Professor in 
Bonn, Germany, in a letter to Dr. Christian, 
says: "1. The meaning of the word baptizein 
is to dip under." 

Dr. Adolph Harnack, the foremost Lutheran 
scholar and church historian, said in a letter to 
Dr. C. E. W. Dobbs: "Baptism undoubtedly 
signifies immersion (eintauchen) ". 

Dr. Alexander Maclaren, of England, in his 
exposition of the Sunday School Lessons in the 
Sunday School Times, said that Jesus was im- 



BAPTISM WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 17? 

mersed. At once a number of gentlemen wrote 
a protest to Dr. Trumbull, editor of the Times. 
In an editorial, August 6, 1889, he replied : 

"Most Christian scholars of every denomination are 
agreed in finding the primitive meaning of the word 
baptize to be 'to dip/ or 'to immerse/ The sweep of 
scholarship in and out of the Baptist church is in favor 
of immersion as a principal meaning of the word bap- 
tize. A very large portion of the scholars of the world 
agree with Dr. Maclaren that immersion was the mode 
of John's baptism." 

Dr. Broadus quotes a modern Greek scholar 
as saying : "The church of the West commits 
an abuse of words and of ideas in practicing bap- 
tism by aspersion, the mere statement of which 
is itself a ridiculous contradiction." 

Martin Luther advocated a return to immer- 
sion as the New Testament form of baptism. 

The great German scholar. Dr. Adolph Har- 
nack, said : "Baptizein undoubtedly signifies 
immersion. No proof can be found that it sig- 
nifies anything else in the New Testament and 
in the most ancient Christian literature. The 
suggestion regarding a sacred sense is out of 
the question. There is no passage in the New 
Testament which suggests the supposition that 
any New Testament author attached to the word 
any other sense than to immerse." 

This is certainly very strong testimony to the 

Baptist position as to the meaning of the word 
12 



178 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

baptizo. I do not see how the testimony could 
have been stronger. In fact, the evidence in 
favor of the Baptist view is so strong that there 
is not a scholar of any denomination, with a 
world-wide reputation for scholarship, who 
would risk his reputation by saying that baptizo 
means anything else but to immerse, to dip, to 
plunge, etc. . In the third edition, I believe it 
was, of their Greek Lexicon, Liddell and Scott 
gave as one possible meaning — about a second 
or third meaning — of the word, to sprinkle or 
pour. But the scholars of the world wrote to 
them and said : "If you don't take that defini- 
tion out of your dictionary, it will kill it." And 
they took it out. 

Why, then, should the form of baptism ever 
have been changed ? It came about in this way : 
For over two centuries after Christ the custom 
of immersion remained unbroken. Somehow, 
though, there began to grow up in the minds 
of many people an impression that baptism had 
something to do with the salvation of the soul. 
In the year 250 A. D. a man by the name of 
Novatian was taken very sick. They thought 
he was going to die. He had not been baptized. 
Feeling that he would be lost if he died unbap- 
tized, and as he was too sick to be immersed, 
they poured water over him and called that bap- 
tism. The historian, Eusebius, says of Nova- 
tian : 



BAPTISM WHAT SCHOLARS SAY 179 

"Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a se- 
vere sickness ; and as he seemed about to die, he re- 
ceived baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; 
if, indeed, we can say such a one did receive it." — 
Nic. Fath., vol. i, pp. 288, 289. 

Baptism by pouring or sprinkling in cases of 
sickness did not, however, become genera! for 
many centuries after that. As late as 754 the 
monks of Cressy asked Pope Stephen II : "Is 
it lawful, in cases of necessity occasioned by 
sickness, to baptize an infant by pouring water 
on its head from a cup or the hands ?" The Pope 
replied : "Such a baptism, performed in such a 
case of necessity, shall be accounted valid/' 

Those who were thus baptized were called 
clinici, from the Greek word klune, a couch, 
meaning that they were baptized on couches, 
indicating that they were sick. Such baptism 
was called clinic baptism. It was considered 
"half perfect," "imperfect." "Those who were 
baptized upon their beds," says the Catholic his- 
torian, Baronius, "were not called Christians, but 
clinics." In the year 131 1 the council of Ra- 
venna held that the mode of baptism by immer- 
sion or by sprinkling was indifferent, and people 
could take their choice. The result was, they 
gradually chose the easier form — sprinkling. 

Notice the steps by which sprinkling came 
into existence. Two hundred and fifty years 
after Christ, Novatian was baptized by affusion, 



580 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

or pouring water over him, because he was too 
sick to be immersed. Five hundred years later, 
in 754, a Pope told some monks that "in cases of 
necessity, occasioned by sickness" it would be 
lawful "to baptize an infant by pouring water 
on its head from a cup or the hands/' Five hun- 
dred and fifty-seven years later, in 131 1, a council 
said it did not make any difference whether a 
person was baptized by immersion or sprinkling. 
Before another five hundred years had gone by 
many people had got in the habit of sprinkling 
or pouring entirely for baptism, and some went 
so far as to say that immersion is not baptism 
at all ! 

It has been urged as an objection to immer- 
sion that three thousand people could not have 
been baptized in one day, as is said to have been 
the case on the day of Pentecost. Well, let us 
see about that. Here is a modern instance 
bearing on the matter: In 1878 Dr. John E. 
Clough and five other Baptist preachers baptized 
2,222 in six hours. Now, the question comes : 
If six Baptist preachers could baptize 2,222 per- 
sons in six hours, how long would it have taken 
for twelve Baptist preachers to baptize 3,000 
persons? You have a good mathematical head 
and can work this out for yourself. I may only 
say now that it would have taken only about four 
hours. 



LETTER NO. 14 



BAPTISM ITS DESIGN. 

My Dear Son : — I have spoken of the form 
of baptism, showing, I think, conclusively that 
it is by immersion. Now the question comes : 
Why baptize at all? What is the design of bap- 
tism? Let us see. Go back to my baptism, of 
which I told you. It was a good deal of trouble 
to which I went in order to be baptized. I drove 
five miles to a river, and there, in the presence 
of one thousand or more people, I was "buried 
with Christ in baptism/' Why should I have 
gone to so much trouble ? I am not asking why 
I should have chosen to go to a river and be 
immersed, but why I should have been baptized 
at all. What was the purpose of it? I followed 
the example of Jesus, who, as I showed you, was 
immersed in the River Jordan. But what was 
the need for my doing it? What did I express 
by it? 

Baptism has a triple significance, a threefold 
meaning, as indicated in Romans 6:4: "There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death : that like as Christ was raised up from 
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 

(181) 



182 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 
6: 4.) 

In Colossians 2 : 12, Paul says again : ''Buried 
with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead." 

1. It typifies the burial and the resurrection 
of our Lord. He instituted the Supper in com- 
memoration of his death. But after his death 
came his burial, and then that most wonderful 
of all events in his history — his resurrection 
from the grave. His resurrection is at least of 
equal importance with his death. "Who was 
delivered for our offenses, and was raised again 
for our justification." (Romans 4: 25.) 

His mission would not have been complete 
without his resurrection. It would have been 
only half accomplished. His death was negative 
in effects, securing the forgiveness of offenses. 
His resurrection was positive, bringing justifi- 
cation. 

Paul says also: "And if Christ be not risen. 
then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also 
vain." (I Corinthians 15 : 14.) The resurrec- 
tion of Christ is the Gibraltar of Christianity, 
the keystone of the arch. If that falls, all falls. 
When Christ lay in the grave the hopes of the 
disciples were dead. They were downcast, de- 
spondent, discouraged. And despite his frequent 
predictions that he would rise, thev were "slow 



BAPTISM — ITS DESIGN 183 

of heart" to believe that he had risen. But when 
they at last realized it their whole manner was 
changed. They became bold, courageous. 
Threats could not deter them from preaching 
Christ and him risen from the dead. Prisons 
could not hold them. Their experience is typical 
of Christianity. The resurrection was the very 
axis of Christianity, its bedrock. An event so 
important ought certainly to be commemorated 
in some way. Baptism has been given as the 
method of commemorating it. As the person 
is laid away in the watery grave, it symbolizes 
the death and burial of Christ, and then, as he 
is raised up again, it symbolizes the resurrection 
of Christ from the tomb. A large portion of the 
Christian world is accustomed once a year to 
observe what is known as Easter Sunday, in 
celebration of the resurrection of Christ on that 
day. But baptism is the ordinance which was 
intended as a perpetual memorial of that impor- 
tant event. Every time a person is buried in 
baptism and raised again out of the liquid tomb, 
he enacts over again in solemn and beautiful 
figure the resurrection of our Lord. 

The reason why the Christian world has come 
to put more emphasis on the death of Christ and 
less upon his resurrection is because it has con- 
tinued to observe the ordinance which celebrates 
his death, but has lost sight, in large measure, 
of the form and meaning of the ordinance which 



184 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

celebrates his resurrection. Baptism is the true 
Easter service. We may observe it every Sun- 
day or every day if we will. And the oftener 
the better. 

2. Baptism symbolizes the burial and resur- 
rection of the person baptized. Every time a 
person is buried in the watery grave and then 
raised again, he indicates in a figure, not only 
the burial and resurrection of Christ but his 
belief that after a while his own body will be laid 
away in the tomb, and that on the resurrection 
morning it will be raised up again to live for- 
evermore. 

3. Baptism also signifies the spiritual burial 
and resurrection of the person. I have shown 
that the plan of salvation includes repentance 
toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus 
Christ. I have shown that repentance means 
a change of mind, and so a change of heart and 
of life, toward sin and toward God. I have 
shown that faith means a personal trust on Christ 
as a personal Saviour, through which he becomes 
a new creature in Christ Jesus. Baptism 
symbolizes these things. As a person is 
laid away in the watery grave, it symbolizes 
his death to the law, his death to sin, his death 
to the old life — that means repentance. As he is 
raised up, it symbolizes his resurrection to a new 
life — that means faith. In other words, baptism 
is the outward expression of the inward experi- 
ence of grace which had taken place in our 



BAPTISM — ITS DESIGN 



185 



hearts. When I was saved I wanted the world 
to know it. I wanted it to know that I had re- 
pented of my sins and believed on Christ. But 
I could not well tell the story in words. My 
tongue was too feeble. And so the Lord 
appointed baptism as the means by which I and 
everyone who had repented of his sins and be- 
lieved on Christ could tell these facts to the 
world. Every time a person is buried in baptism 
and raised again, he expresses in a picture, in 
a figure, in an emblem, in a beautiful object les- 
son, the fact of his repentance and faith. 

There are two fundamental words in Chris- 
tianity — Sinner, Saviour. Corresponding with 
these are two other words — Repentance, Faith. 
To these are to be added two other words — 
Burial, Resurrection. Now run them together 
and you will see the connection between them — 
Sinner, Repentance, Burial; Saviour, Faith, 
Resurrection. His burial in water expresses the 
sinner's repentance. His resurrection from the 
watery grave expresses his faith in his Saviour. 

This is what baptism means — both as regards 
Christ and as regards the individual. And this 
is all it means. But how full of meaning ! How 
great its significance! What a tremendous pity 
that anyone should destroy its meaning, either 
by changing its form or by attaching to it a 
significance which it was not intended to convey., 
and which causes it to degenerate into a formal, 
ceremonial, meretricious, mechanical rite ! 



LETTER NO. 15 



BAPTISM ITS DESIGN IS IT IN ORDER TO 

SALVATION ? 

My Dear Son : — But someone says : Does not 
baptism have something to do with our salva- 
tion? Do not Baptists believe that? I was 
riding on the train several years ago with an 
intelligent gentleman of another denomination. 
He said to me, "May I ask you a question?" I 
said, "Yes." "Don't you Baptists believe in bap- 
tismal salvation?" I replied, "No, sir." "Why, 
yes, you do" he said. "No, we don't" I an- 
swered. "I have heard your preachers preach 
it," he replied. "You never did" I said. "If 
ever you heard anybody preach that, you might 
know by the very fact of his preaching it that 
he was not a Baptist preacher. For no Baptist 
preacher, from the days of John the Baptist until 
now, ever preached that." 

Baptists are sometimes accused of believing 
too much in water. This is a mistake. While 
we believe in much water, we do not believe much 
in water. Or, to state it another way : We put 
stress on much water, we do not put much stress 
on water. In fact, we put less stress on water 
than any other denomination of Christians, ex- 
cise) 



BAPTISM — ITS DESIGN 187 

cept the Quakers. We set less store by baptism 
than any other denomination. We believe in bap- 
tism. We insist upon it as a sacred duty. But 
we do not believe that it has anything to do with 
the salvation of the soul. If the person was not 
saved before baptism, he will not be saved on 
account of it. Baptism is for saved people, not 
to save them. Only those who have repented of 
their sins and have believed on Christ, are fit 
subjects for baptism. The blood must come be- 
fore the water, regeneration before church 
membership, Christ before the church. 

But are there not some passages of Scripture 
which teach baptismal salvation? Let us see 
about that. 

Here are the passages usually relied upon to 
teach this doctrine : 

"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved ; 
but he that disbelieves shall be condemned." (Mark 
16: 16.) "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to 
thee, unless one be born of water and the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5.) 
"And Peter said to them. Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission 
of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." (Acts 2: 38.) "And now why tarriest thou? 
Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling 
on his name." (Acts 22: 16.) "For all ye who were 
baptized into Christ, did put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 27.) 
"Which in an antitype, baptism, now saves you also 
(not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the re- 



188 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

quirement of a good conscience toward God), through 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (i Peter 3: 21.) 

These are all the passages bearing directly on 
the subject of baptism in connection with salva- 
tion. Let us admit that if these were all that the 
Scriptures say on the plan of salvation, and tak- 
ing them in what seems to be their literal sense, 
it would look as if they require baptism as one of 
the requisites to salvation. But to interpret them 
that way is to bring them into hopeless conflict 
with such passages as : 

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that every 
one who believes in him may have eternal life. For 
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son, that every one who believes on him should not 
perish, but have eternal life. . . . He that believes 
on the Son has eternal life; but he that disbelieves the 
Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on 
him." (John 3: 14-16, 36.) "And they said, Believe 
on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house." (Acts 16: 31.) "How I shrank not from an- 
nouncing to you anything that was profitable, and from 
teaching you publicly and from house to house ; testi- 
fying to both Jews and Greeks, repentance toward God, 
and faith toward our Lord Jesus." (Acts 20: 20, 21.) 
"Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace 
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:1.) 
"I do not set aside the grace of God ; for if through law 
there is righteousness, then Christ died without caused 
CGal. 2: 31.) "But that by law no one is justified with 
God. is evident; because the righteous shall live by faith. 



BAPTISM — ITS DESIGN 189 

Now the law is not of faith; but he that does them 
shall live in them. For ye are all sons of God through 
faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 11, 12, 26.) "For by 
grace ye have been saved through faith; and that not of 
yourselves : it is the gift of God : not from works, lest 
any one should boast. ,, (Eph. 2: 8, 9.) "The blood 
of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 
i:7.) 

Indeed there are one hundred — I had almost 
said one thousand — other passages which teach 
this doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. 
They are so numerous that it would be impossible 
to quote or even to refer to them all in my limited 
space. If you interpret the set of passages 
relating to baptism in their apparently literalistic 
meaning, you must throw overboard all these 
passages. In fact, to do so, you will have to 
throw overboard all the balance of the New Tes- 
tament, for the one clear, dominant note which 
pervades the whole New Testament is salvation 
by grace through faith in Christ. And indeed you 
will have to throw overboard the whole Bible, for 
the blood of Jesus Christ runs like a scarlet thread 
through it all, from Genesis to Revelation. 

It will become necessary, then, to see if there 
is not some other interpretation of these few 
passages which will make them harmonize with 
the rest of Scripture. It may be set down as an 
invariable rule that one passage of Scripture does 
not contradict another, when both are properly 
understood, however much they may seem to do 



190 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

so on their face. The principle of interpretation 
of Scripture should be, not iiteralistic, but ration- 
alistic — not its apparent, but its real meaning. 
For instance, take these passages : Christ said of 
himself: "I am the door" (John 10: 9) ; "I am 
the way" (John 14: 6) ; "I am the vine" (John 
15: 5). By these expressions he did not mean 
that he was a literal door, made of wood or of 
iron, six feet high by four feet wide; or that he 
was a literal way, made of dirt or of rock ; or that 
he was a literal grapevine. The Iiteralistic 
method of interpretation would require such 
meanings to be given these passages, which every 
one recognizes would be absurd. What he meant, 
of course, was simply that he represents 
a door or a way or a vine. So also when he is 
spoken of as a "Lamb." (John 1 : 29.) "The 
rose of Sharon ; the lily of the valleys." (Songs 
2:1.) "The bright and morning star." (Rev. 
22: 16.) The same rule applies also when he 
said to his disciples, referring to the bread which 
he held in his hand, "This is my body." The 
Catholics take this in its literal sense, and claim 
that the bread of the supper, or the "sacrament," 
as they call it, under the blessing of the priest, is 
turned into the literal body of Jesus, quoting this 
passage to prove it. Luther, who never got far 
enough away from Rome to understand the fig- 
urative meaning of this expression, once had a 
debate upon the subject with Zwingli. Luther 



BAPTISM — ITS DESIGN 191 

contended that the passage was to be taken in a 
literalistic sense, and Zwingli that it was to be 
taken in a rationalistic or figurative sense, mean- 
ing, this represents my body. Finally Zwingli 
wound Luther up so completely in the argument 
that all Luther could do was to stand and repeat 
over and over, "Hoc est meum corpus" ("this is 
my body") — that is what it says. 

The position of Zwingli has always been the 
position of Baptists, and it has come to be the ac- 
cepted position of practically the whole Protestant 
world. That it is the true position scarcely admits 
of any dispute, and of none among those who do 
not accept the authority of Rome in the interpreta- 
tion of Scripture. But the same principle of inter- 
pretation which applies to baptism will apply to the 
supper as well. If Acts 22: 16 ("Arise and be 
baptized and wash away thy sins") is to be taken 
in a literal sense, so is Matthew 26: 26 ("This is 
my body"). If baptismal regeneration is true, 
so is transubstantiation. Catholics are consistent 
in interpreting both passages by the same rule, 
and accepting both the doctrines which logically 
follow — baptismal regeneration and transubstan- 
tiation. How any person can accept one doctrine 
and not the other I do not understand. But some 
people are consistent only in their inconsistency. 



LETTER NO. 16 



BAPTISM ITS DESIGN PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 

My Dear Son : — Let us now examine the 
passages of Scripture which it is claimed teach 
the doctrine of baptismal salvation. 

i. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned" 
(Mark 16: 16). It is a well-known fact that 
there is very great doubt as to the genuineness of 
the last sixteen verses of Mark, from the ninth 
through the twentieth verses. This question has 
been argued over and over again very thoroughly 
by the text critics. I need not discuss it in detail 
here. I may only say that I am inclined to the 
view that the passage was not written by Mark, 
but ^yas added by some later writer, who himself, 
however, was probably inspired. Accepting, 
then, the genuineness of the passage, let us see 
what this verse means. Several remarks are 
to be made : 

(i) The emphasis in the verse is evidently 
upon believe. It says, "He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned ;" and not "he that believeth not 
and is not baptised/' If we do not believe, we 
are lost. But why should it have been said in the 

(192) 



BAPTISM — PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 193 

previous clause, "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved?" Interpreting this in the 
light of other passages, as I showed recently, the 
belief is what saves actually; the baptism is a 
figurative and symbolic expression of the belief. 

(2) Compare with this John 3 : 36: "He that 
believes on the Son has eternal life, but he that dis- 
believes the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath 
of God abides on him." According to this verse 
a person who believes on the Son has everlast- 
ing life — has it when he believes, has it before he 
is baptized. Scripture cannot contradict itself. 
In order to make these two passages harmonize, 
therefore, we must necessarily understand the 
expression "and is baptized," in the sense which 
I have just indicated. 

(3) In a debate recently I heard one of the 
disputants repeat this, verse over and over. He 
would put it this way : " 'He that believeth' (item 
No. 1) 'and is baptized' (item No. 2) 'shall be 
saved' (item No. 3)." It was very easy for his 
opponent to show that he did not believe his own 
proof text, but that his real belief should have 
been expressed as follows : " 'He that believes' 
(item No. 1) 'and repents of his sins' (item No. 
2), 'and makes the good confession' (item No. 
3), 'and is baptized' (item No. 4), 'by one of his 
brethren' (item No. 5), 'shall be saved' (item 
No. 6), 'if he keeps the whole law' (item No. 7), 

13 



194 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

'and does not fall from grace' (item No. 8)." 
Literalism always proves too much. 

2. "Unless one be born of water and the Spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John, 
3: 5). What does "born of water" mean? On 
its face, it seems to teach baptismal regeneration, 
and it is so understood by Catholics, Episcopa- 
lians, Campbellites, and sometimes by Presbyte- 
rians and Methodists. Alexander Campbell said. 
"Immersion is equivalent to regeneration." Is 
there any other sense in which the passage can be 
interpreted ? Yes, there are several. 

(1) That the expression, "born of water," is 
to be taken, not in a literal, but in a figurative 
sense. 

(2) That the water is to be construed as a 
symbol of purification, as when the Saviour said 
to the woman at the well : "But whoever drinks 
of the water that I will give him will never thirst ; 
but the water that I will give him will become in 
him a well of water, springing up into eternal 
life." (John 4: 14.) 

(3) That the water means the Gospel, as in 
Isa. 4:1: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye 
to the w r aters, and he that hath no money ; come 
ye, buy, and eat : yea, come, buy wine and milk 
without money and without price." John 7 : 37, 
38 : "Now in the last day, the great day of the 
feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying. If any one 
thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that 



BAPTISM — PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 195 

believes on me, as said the Scripture, from within 
him shall flow rivers of living water/' Rev. 21 : 
6 : "And he said to me, They have come to pass. 
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and 
the end. I will give to him that thirsts, of the 
fountain of the water of life freely." Rev. 22 : 1 : 
"And he showed me a river of water of life, 
bright as crystal, going forth out of the throne of 
God and the Lamb." Rev. 22: 17: "And the 
Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him 
that hears say, Come. And let him that thirsts, 
come ; let him that will, take the water of life 
freely." 

Those who understand the passage in the above 
sense, understand the word for "and" as meaning 
"even," as is frequently the case, so that the 
passage would mean "born of water, even of the 
Spirit," making the Spirit the instrument of 
regeneration, and water simply the symbol cor- 
responding with the term Spirit. 

(4) To me the simplest and most natural in- 
terpretation is to understand "born of water," as 
referring to the first birth, and "of the Spirit" as 
referring to the second birth. When Christ said, 
"Ye must be born again," Nicodemus understood 
him as referring to the first birth, and the Saviour 
told him that besides the first there is a second 
birth, the birth of the Spirit, and that a man must 
have both births before he can enter into the 
Kingdom of God. This view is borne out, and it 



196 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

seems to me pretty strongly established, by the 
next verse, which reads : "That which is born of 
the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the 
Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6.) 

I do not believe that any one would have under- 
stood this text as referring to baptism if it had not 
been for the controversy upon the subject of bap- 
tismal regeneration which sprang up in the early 
Christian centuries, arid as a result of which the 
advocates of baptismal regeneration were led to 
interpret every text possible in the light of bap- 
tism. And that controversy has given coloring to 
the interpretation put upon the passage ever since 
by persons of all shades of belief. I think, how- 
ever, that the Christian world ought to return and 
will return to the simple and natural meaning of 
the passage. 

3. Acts 2 : 38 : 'Then Peter said to them, Re- 
pent ye and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. " 
This is the passage upon which those who teach 
the doctrine of baptismal salvation mainly rely. 
This is their great proof text, their Gibraltar. 
This is the stake around w r hich they graze. They 
never get far away from it. No matter where 
they start or where they go, they will always come 
back to this text. They make it mean, "Repent 
ye and be baptised . . . in order to the re- 



BAPTISM PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 197 

mission of sins." But there are several other 
meanings which it may have. 

(i) "Repent ye and be baptized on account of, 
or because of, or with respect to, the remission of 
sins." In that case, the preposition eis is under- 
stood as looking backward. That eis usually 
looks forward is readily admitted ; in fact, it does 
so in the overwhelming majority of instances. 
But that it sometimes looks backward is beyond 
question. Take this passage : The Saviour says 
that "the men of Nineveh repented at the preach- 
ing of Jonas" (Matt. 12: 41 and Luke 11 : 32). 
The word translated "at" here is eis. The preach- 
ing, of course, occurred before the repentance, so 
that eis necessarily looks backward, making the 
passage mean, "the men of Nineveh repented on 
account of, or with respect to, the preaching 
of Jonas." Here, then, is an undoubted instance 
in which eis looks backward. And if it looks 
backward in one instance, it may in another. So 
that it is entirely possible and legitimate, from the 
standpoint of Greek Grammar, to translate Acts 
2 : 38, "Repent ye and be baptized every one of 
you on account of, or because of, or with respect 
to, the remission of sins;" thus making baptism 
declarative, and not procurative, of the remission 
of sins. 

(2) Instead of understanding the expression, 
"for the remission of sins," as being connected 
simply with "be baptized," it may be connected 



198 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

with both "Repent ye," and with "be baptized." 
So that the passage would read, repent ye and be 
baptized for the remission of sins." You must 
do both in order that your sins may be remitted. 
And the remission is secured actually by repent- 
ance, with its concomitant faith, and figuratively 
by baptism. This seems a little aw r kw r ard, but it 
preserves the usual meaning of the word eis. 

(3) The preposition used in most of the manu- 
scripts for "in," in the phrase "in the name of," is 
epi. This means "on" or "upon." So that the 
verse would read, "Repent ye and be baptized 
every one of you, trusting on, or relying upon, the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your 
sins," making the name of Christ the foundation 
for the remission of sins. This seems to me 
altogether the most satisfactory explanation. It 
preserves the usual meaning of the preposi- 
tion eis. It gives the real basis for the re- 
mission of sins — the name of Jesus Christ. 
It brings in the essential element of faith as 
the ground for the remission of sins, which 
otherwise is not stated in the verse. Either of 
these explanations, however, is entirely possible, 
and either one interprets the passage in harmony 
with all the rest of Scripture, instead of bringing 
it into hopeless conflict with the balance of the 
New Testament, with the exception of half a 
dozen passages, as would be the case if it were 
interpreted to mean that baptism is in order to the 
remission of sins. 



LETTER NO. 17 



baptism its design passages concluded. 

My Dear Son : — 

4. In Acts 22 : 16, Ananias is represented as 
saying to Saul, "And now, why tarriest thou? 
Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins : 
calling on the name of the Lord." This seems 
very plain, does it not? "Arise, and be baptized, 
and wash away thy sins" — wash them away in 
baptism. What could be plainer or clearer than 
that ? How are you going to explain that away ? 
Well, here is another verse which says, "The blood 
of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" 
( 1 John 1:7). How are you going to explain that 
away? If the blood cleanses us from all sin, we 
do not need the water to wash away our sins. 
And if the water washes away our sins, we do 
not need the blood to cleanse How will you 
harmonize these two passages then? If you un- 
derstand both of them in the same sense, as cleans- 
ing actually, the two are in hopeless conflict. But 
the explanation is very simple. The blood 
cleanses actually and the water figuratively. The 
water simply declares in a figure the cleansing 
which has already taken place through the blood. 
It expresses in a symbol the real cleansing which 

(199) 



200 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

has been effected by the blood. Understood this 
way, there is not only no conflict between the two 
passages, but there is the most beautiful harmony. 
The blood and the water go together. But the 
blood comes before the water. And it is the 
bloody not the water, that "cleanseth us from all 
sin." 

5. In Gal. 3 : 27, Paul says : "For all ye who 
were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ." 
"Baptized into Christ !" That looks as if the way 
we get into Christ is by baptism, does it not ? Yes, 
but he had just said in the preceding verse, "For 
ye are all children of God by faith in Jesus 
Christ. " If the Galatians were already, as Paul 
asserted they were, "children of God by faith 
in Christ Jesus," they did not need baptism 
to make them such. What, then, did Paul mean 
when he said, "For all ye who were baptized 
into Christ did put on Christ?" What could 
he mean but that they had thus formally and 
openly declared their allegiance to Christ ? Bap- 
tism is the uniform of the soldier. He is a sol- 
dier at heart when he determines to fight for his 
country, and he may be a soldier without any uni- 
form at all. But when he decides to become a 
soldier, the proper thing for him to do next is to 
don the uniform of the army in which he is to 
fight, so as to indicate openly to the world the fact 
that he is a soldier in that army. In short, we 
really become children of God by faith in 



ITS DESIGN — PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 201 

Christ, we formally put on, openly profess, Christ 
in baptism. 

6. Says Peter ( i Peter 3 : 20, 21 ) : 'That afore- 
time were disobedient, when the longsuffering of 
God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was " 
a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
were saved through water : which also after a true 
likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the 
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inter- 
rogation of a good conscience toward God, through 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ/' This passage 
has been a bone of contention during all the cen- 
turies. The advocates of baptismal regeneration 
claim it as teaching that dogma. But let us see. 
Did the water save Noah and his seven com- 
panions? Were they not really saved by the 
ark? The ark floated in the water, and so 
having entered into (eis) the ark before the 
water came, they were saved through water in a 
sense, but saved really by the ark. So also bap- 
tism now saves you, as an antitype corresponding 
to the water. But Christ is the antitype corre- 
sponding to the ark. As the ark saved Noah, so 
does Christ save you. As Noah was saved actu- 
ally by the ark and figuratively through water, so 
you are saved actually by Christ and figuratively 
through baptism, which "pictures in the present 
what has been experienced in the past." Baptism 
is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." 
It cannot make any one pure in heart. It cer- 



202 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



tainly cannot save the body. It is the pledge 
which the good conscience makes towards God. 
The conscience was already good before baptism. 
It had become such by the blood of Christ, which 
cleanses from all sin. In baptism it pledges its 
allegiance and obedience to God. But as Noah 
would have been destroyed by the water without 
the ark, so will the soul be destroyed which relies 
upon baptism without Christ. 

And so we have seen that in every one of the 
passages which it is claimed teach baptismal sal- 
vation, not only may there be another meaning 
which will bring it into harmony with the rest of 
Scripture, but in each instance this other meaning- 
is perfectly natural and gives a beautiful as well 
as scriptural idea, while to interpret these passages 
as meaning baptismal salvation is, as I have said, 
to bring them into hopeless conflict with the rest 
of the Bible. Besides, this theory of baptismal 
regeneration puts the water before the blood, and 
says that you cannot reach the blood except in the 
water. It makes the outward and physical more 
important than the inward and spiritual. It sub- 
stitutes the shadow for the substance. It brings 
a third person between the soul and its God. It 
requires the manipulation of priestly hands to pro- 
cure salvation. It condemns to hell with one fell 
swoop all the pious unimmersed. Some of the 
advocates of this theory are bold enough to accept 
the conclusions to which it leads. For instance, 



ITS DESIGN — PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 203 

an editorial contributor to the Christian Leader, 
a paper published in Cincinnati, said : "Now, if 
D. L. Moody was a Christian, our plea is vain, 
and our preaching false, and there is no place in 
Christendom for us." The brother was right 
about it. According to his theology, baptism is 
essential to salvation, baptism is only by immer- 
sion, and as D. L. Moody had not been immersed, 
he was not saved. Logically, consistently, he and 
others who teach the doctrine of baptismal regen- 
eration must hold to this belief. But what a hor- 
rible doctrine, which would damn such a man as 
D. L. Moody, and others like him, who have 
repented of their sins, believed in Christ, and have 
shown their faith by godly lives consecrated to 
the service of Christ! Nothing could show the 
falsity and hollowness of the doctrine of baptismal 
salvation more thoroughly than the conclusion to 
which it logically leads. 

But the brother himself has raised a serious 
issue. "If D. L. Moody was a Christian, our 
plea is vain, and our preaching false, and there is 
no place in Christendom for us." I accept the 
issue. I take my stand upon the claim that D. L. 
Moody was a Christian — that he was the child of 
God by faith, that he had been cleansed by the 
blood and did not need the water to cleanse, and 
that he is saved. That this is true scarcely needs 
argument now. It is the almost universal con- 
sensus of the Christian world that if there ever 



204 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

was a Christian, D. L. Moody was one. The 
alternative, that the plea of this brother and his 
fellow believers is vain, that their preaching is 
false and there is no place in Christendom for 
them, is the brother's own logic. 



LETTER NO. 18 



BELIEVER S BAPTISM. 

My Dear Son : — We have seen how a person 
should be baptized, and why he should be bap- 
tized. The question comes, Who should be bap- 
tized? 

The following passages of Scripture will tell 
us : In John 4: 1, 2, it is said : "When therefore 
the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that 
Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples 
than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, 
but his disciples)/' Here it is distinctly stated 
that Jesus first "made disciples,'' and then bap- 
tized — or, rather, his disciples did — those thus 
made disciples, which shows that we should bap- 
tize only those who have already been made dis- 
ciples. In Matthew 28 : 19, 20, he says : "Go ye, 
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, 
baptizing them into the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit : teaching them 
to observe all things whatsoever I commanded 
you : and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
end of the world." Here he commands his fol- 
lowers first to make disciples, then to baptize those 
thus made disciples. In Mark 16 : 16, Jesus says : 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved : 

(205) 



206 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned/' 
Here belief is distinctly antecedent to baptism. 
So in Acts 8:12: "But when they believed Philip 
preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom 
of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
baptized, both men and women." First belief, 
then baptism. "And many of the Corinthians 
hearing believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18 : 
8). Believed first, were baptized afterward. 
"They then that received his word were baptized" 
(Acts 2 : 41 ) . This implies two things : 1. Those 
who were baptized were old enough to "receive 
his word." 2. "Receive his word" meant that they 
believed. And so again we have belief before 
baptism. And so everywhere it is either expressly 
mentioned that belief comes before baptism, or it 
is so implied. From these and other similar 
passages comes the doctrine of Believer's Baptism, 
the baptism only of those who believe on Christ, 
and have been made disciples of his by that belief. 
This shows that they must have been old enough 
to believe, and that they must have been regen- 
erated. 

1. Infant baptism is unscriptural. But are 
there not some passages which teach that infants 
may be baptized? What passages? None can 
be quoted, because there are none such. Well, 
did not Jesus say, "Suffer the little children, and 
forbid them not, to come unto me?" (Matt. 19: 
14.) Certainly. Did he not take them up in his 



believer's baptism 207 

arms and bless them? (Mark 10 : 10.) Yes, to 
be sure, he blessed them. But it does not say any- 
thing about his baptizing them. Nor is there any 
implication in the text or the context that he did so. 

But are there not some instances of household 
baptisms in the New Testament from which in- 
fant baptism might be inferred ? Let us see about 
these. The first was the household of Cornelius. 
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 
Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And 
they of the circumcision that believed were 
amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that 
on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of 
the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak 
with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered 
Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these 
should not be baptized, who have received the 
Holy Spirit as well as we ? And he commanded 
them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. 
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days" (Acts 
10: 44-48). Notice that those who were bap- 
tized "heard the word." Those who came with 
Peter "heard them speak with tongues and mag- 
nify God." If they could do these things they 
were certainly old enough to believe. 

Another instance of household baptism usually 
given to prove infant baptism is the case of Lydia's 
household. "And a certain woman named Lydia, 
a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that 
worshiped God, heard us : whose heart the Lord 



208 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

opened, to give heed unto the things which were 
spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, 
and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye 
have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come 
into my house, and abide there. And she con- 
strained us (Acts 16: 14, 15). But notice. Lydia 
was a traveling merchant from Thyatira, who had 
come to Philippi selling fine purple cloth. It is 
not likely that if she had any small children she 
would have brought them with her on such a mis- 
sion. But it would be very natural that she 
should have had some women assistants in her 
business who would be members of her household. 
These were baptized with her. But there is not 
the slightest indication in the passage that she had 
any children with her, or that she ever had a child, 
or even that she was ever married. 

In the same chapter is an account of the bap- 
tism of the Philippian jailer's household. "And 
they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with 
all that were in his house. And he took them the 
same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; 
and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. 
And he brought them up into his house, and 
set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, 
with all his house, having believed in God" (Acts 
16: 32-34). Notice again that the members of 
the jailer's household were old enough to have the 
word of the Lord spoken to them and also to "re- 



BELIEVER S BAPTISM 



209 



joice greatly." They were certainly old enough 
then to believe, and so to be baptized. 

Paul says that he baptized the "household of 
Stephanas" (i Cor. i : 16). But there is nothing 
to indicate that there were any infants in the 
household. On the contrary, Paul says that the 
household of Stephanas "have set themselves to 
minister unto the saints" (i Cor. 16: 15), which 
infants could not do. 

These four are the only instances of household 
baptism in the New Testament. In none of them 
is there any mention of infants, or anything to in- 
dicate, or even intimate, that there were any 
infants in these households. But in all of them 
there is something to imply that the members of 
these households were not infants. Notice, too, 
that there were believing as well as baptized house- 
holds. Of the nobleman of Cana it is said : "Him- 
self believed, and his whole house" (John 4: 53). 
We read again : "Crispus, the chief ruler of the 
synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his 
house" (Acts 18: 8). My old teacher at the 
seminary, Dr. Basil Manly, used to say that the 
texts quoted to support infant baptism were: 
First, those which did not mention infants ; sec- 
ond, those which did not mention baptism; and 
third, those which mention neither infants nor 
baptism. 

Here is what some Pedobaptist scholars say 
on the subject : 

14 



210 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Olshaucer, a learned commentator, says : "We 
are destitute of any passage in favor of infant bap- 
tism in the Apostolic age; nor can its necessity 
be deduced from the idea of baptism/' 

Schleiermacher, a devout man and able scholar, 
says : "All traces of infant baptism which we find 
in the New Testament, must first be put into it." 

Augusti, a famous scholar, says : "Infant bap- 
tism rests on tradition, and the practice was grad- 
ually introduced into the church." 

Lindner, a doctor of divinity in high repute at 
Leipsic, says : "There can be no question about 
any infant baptism if the Christian Church will 
remain true to the gospel. Neither the baptism 
of John nor Christian baptism can be fulfilled in 
respect to new-born children. " 

Jacobi says : "In none of these instances has it 
been proved that there were little children among 
them." 

Dr. Augustus Neander, one of the most emi- 
nent church historians, a name of world-wide 
reputation, says : "Baptism was administered at 
first only to adults, as men were accustomed to 
conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. 
We have all reason for not deriving infant bap- 
tism from apostolic institution." — Ecclesiastical 
History, vol. I, p. 311, Am. ed. 

Again he says : "As baptism was closely united 
with a conscious entrance on Christian com- 
munion, faith and baptism were always connected 



BELIEVER S BAPTISM 



211 



with one another, and thus it is in the highest 
degree probable that baptism was performed only 
in the instances where both could meet together, 
and that the practice of infant baptism was un- 
known at this period." — Planting and Training of 
the Christian Church, pp. 161, 162. 

Again : "We cannot prove that the apostles 
ordained infant baptism ; from those places where 
the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, we 
can diaw no such conclusion. " 

Prof. Moses Stuart, D.D., Andover Theolog- 
ical Seminary : "Commands or plain and certain 
examples in the New Testament relative to it (in- 
fant baptism) I do not find." — Biblical Repos- 
itory, 1883, p. 365. 

Dr. J. P. Lange, the eminent German commen- 
tator: "All attempts to make out infant baptism 
from the New Testament fail. It is totally op- 
posed to the spirit of the apostolic age and to the 
fundamental principles of the New Testament. "— 
Infant Baptism, p. 101. 

Dr. Hanna said in The North American Re- 
viezv: "Scripture knows nothing of infant bap- 
tism. There is absolutely not a single trace of it 
to be found in the New Testament. There are 
passages which may be reconciled with it if the 
practice can only be proved to have existed, but 
there is not one word which asserts its existence." 
(July, 1852, pp. 209-212.) 

Dean Stanley said : "Another change is not so 



212 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

complete (as that from immersion to sprinkling), 
but it is perhaps more important. In the apostolic 
age and in the three centuries which followed, it 
is evident that, as a general rule, those who came 
to baptism came in full age, of their own delib- 
erate choice. We find a few cases of the baptism 
of children ; in the third century we find one case 
of the baptism of infants. The liturgical service 
of baptism was framed entirely for full-grown 
converts, and is only by considerable adaptation 
applied to the case of infants." 

2. But not only is infant baptism unscriptural. 
It is antiscriptural. It is not only not in the New 
Testament. It is positively against New Testa- 
ment principles. It is opposed to the whole gospel 
scheme. I showed you how one of the funda- 
mental Baptist doctrines is individualism. This 
is also a fundamental Christian doctrine. "So 
then each of us shall give account of himself to 
God" (Rom. 14: 12), not of another, not of 
another for him, but of himself. "He that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath eternal life" (John 3 : 36), 
not he whose father and mother believe, not he for 
whom somebody else believes, but "he that be- 
lieveth" — himself believeth, and believeth for him- 
self. There is no such thing as proxy belief or 
proxy baptism. Infant baptism completely de- 
stroys this principle of individualism by substi- 
tuting for the conscious, voluntary act of the indi- 
vidual in repenting of his sins and believing on 



BELIEVER S BAPTISM 



213 



Christ, the unconscious, involuntary act of the 
infant in being baptized without his knowledge or 
consent, by the act of some one else. 

I showed you that another fundamental Baptist 
principle is regeneration, and another is a spiritual 
religion. These two principles are practically 
the same. "Except one be born anew he cannot 
see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Nor is he 
fit to be a member of Christ's church. To have 
an unregenerate man a member of the church is 
to introduce an inharmonious, discordant element 
into it. This, infant baptism does. Regeneration 
comes through the operation of the Holy Spirit by 
repentance and faith. But infants are unable to 
repent and believe, and consequently cannot be 
regenerated, so far as their personal sins are con- 
cerned. When they grow up and are recognized 
as members of the church on their infant baptism, 
without having believed on Christ and been regen- 
erated by the Holy Spirit, they are out of place in 
the church, and can only create discord there. 
And thus, as Professor Tholuck said to Joseph 
Cook is the case in Germany, "You have them all 
mixed up pell-mell together" in the church, the 
good and bad, regenerate and unregenerate. It 
is said that most of the noted infidels of modern 
times, such as Bolingbroke, Shaftesbury, Gibbon, 
Hume, Hobbes, Voltaire, Volney, Rousseau, and, 
I think, Ingersoll, were baptized infidels, having 
been baptized in infancy. This is a sad condition 



214 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



truly for a church of Christ. But it comes natu- 
rally and logically from infant baptism. And thus 
infant baptism perverts the gospel of Christ, sub- 
verts the church to an unholy alliance with the 
world and with infidelity, and undermines Chris- 
tianity itself. It introduces the principle of 
sacramentarianism instead of evangelicism ; of 
forms and ceremonies, instead of the simple gos- 
pel ; of an unconverted, or, at least, a mixed mem- 
bership, instead of a converted church member- 
ship ; of a worldly, instead of a spiritual church ; 
of two classes, the saved and the unsaved, in the 
church, instead of the saved alone, as there should 
be in a church of Christ. 

3. Infant baptism, therefore, is not only un- 
scriptural and anti-scriptural ; it is a dangerous 
doctrine. It gives a false sense of security to the 
one baptized in infancy. He learns that at his 
baptism he was said to be "regenerated and 
grafted into the body of Christ's church. " He 
supposes this must be true. He trusts to his bap- 
tism to save him, instead of trusting in Christ as 
his personal Saviour by repentance and faith, and 
consequently is deceived and lost. I cannot im- 
agine a more dangerous, a more soul-destroying 
doctrine. 

But it may be said, not all of those who are bap- 
tized in infancy are baptized to regenerate them. 
Then what is the use of the ordinance? What 
good does it do? Why practice it? When this 



believer's baptism 215 

question was put to Henry Ward Beecher, his 
reply was that "infant baptism is like an oxgoad — 
it is a good thing." But how is it a good thing? 
Is it, as some say, intended as a "dedicatory rite," 
to dedicate the child to God ? Then why the cere- 
mony of baptism? Could not the child be dedi- 
cated to God without the ceremony of baptism? 
Baptist parents frequently dedicate their children 
to God, and all ought to do so. But they do it by 
prayer or by word, but without baptism. If, there- 
fore, infant baptism is intended as a saving ordi- 
nance, it is dangerous, very dangerous. If it is 
intended simply as a dedicatory rite, it is entirely 
useless. In either case it is unnecessary and 
should be dispensed with. As I said to you in 
discussing "Regeneration," Baptists have always 
stood for a regenerated church membership. For 
this reason they have always opposed with all their 
might infant baptism. For centuries they were 
known as Anabaptists or Rebaptizers, for the 
reason that they constantly insisted on rebaptizing 
those who had been baptized in infancy, whether 
they had been sprinkled or immersed. They con- 
sidered that such baptism was no baptism at all. 
Is it true, then, that all members of Baptist 
churches have been regenerated, that they have 
all really believed on Christ ? No, but they must 
all profess to be. If they are not, they are either 
self-deceived or have deceived the church, usually 
the former. The fault is with the individual, not 
with the principles he professes. 



LETTER NO. 19 



THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

My Dear Son : — For some weeks we have 
been studying the subject of baptism — its form, 
its design, its subjects. We come now to con- 
sider the second ordinance of the church, the 
Lord's Supper. There are four views of the 
Supper. These four views became distinctly 
defined at the time of the Reformation under 
Martin Luther, and they all remain until now, 
with more or less followers. 

i. The first view is transnbstantiation. This 
is the Roman Catholic view. It says that under 
the blessing of the priest the bread and the wine 
used in celebrating the Lord's Supper are 
changed into the actual body and blood of the 
Lord. This view is a literalistic interpretation 
of the words of our Lord when he said, "This is 
my body," and "This is my blood." As I showed, 
though, in discussing the design of baptism, the 
proper rule for the interpretation of Scripture is 
not literalistic, but rationalistic. It is simply 
absurd to think of Jesus holding his own body in 
his hands when he said, speaking of the bread, 
"This is my body," or his own blood when he said, 
"This is my blood." 

(216) 



THE LORD'S SUPPER 217 

2. The second view is what is known as con- 
substantiation. This was the view of Luther. 
He was afraid to get too far away from Roman 
Catholicism, and so he invented this view as a 
compromise. According to this view the bread 
and wine are not changed into the body and blood 
of our Lord, but the body and the blood are in, 
with and under the bread and the wine, just as 
heat is in, with and under the iron, or magnetism 
is in, with and under the loadstone. To my mind 
this view is about as absurd and impossible as 
transubstantiation. 

3. The third view was the view of Calvin, not 
that the bread and wine are changed into the body 
and the blood of the Lord, nor that the body and 
blood are in, with and under the bread and the 
wine, but that somehow there is a real blessing 
connected with the bread and the wine, and that 
the person who partakes of them will receive that 
blessing, from the fact and in the act of partaking 
of them. 

4. The fourth view is that of the other Swiss 
reformer, Zwingli, which was, not that the bread 
and the wine are changed into the body and blood, 
nor that the body and blood are in, with and under 
the bread and wine, nor that there is a real bless- 
ing connected with the bread and wine, but that 
the bread and wine are simply emblems of the 
broken body and shed blood of the Lord, and that 



218 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

the Supper is a memorial ordinance, to commem- 
orate the death of the Lord in symbol. 

This view of Zwingli is the Baptist view. They 
understand that when Jesus said, "This is my 
body," "This is my blood/' he simply meant, 
"This bread represents my body," "This wine rep- 
resents my blood," just as when he said, "I am the 
door," "I am the way." This view is proven 
conclusively by the words of Jesus as quoted by 
Paul : "And when he had given thanks, he brake 
it, and said, This is my body, which is for you : 
this do in remembrance of me. In like manner 
also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the 
new covenant in my blood : this do, as often as ye 
drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as 
ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim 
the Lord's death till he come" ( I Cor. 1 1 : 24-26) . 
The supper, then, was intended simply in remem- 
brance of Christ, as a reminder, a memento of him, 
to show the Lord's death till he come, to proclaim 
in silent symbol the fact of his death throughout 
all coming generations. 

We sometimes give to friends a cup on which is 
inscribed, "Remember me." The cup which we 
drink at the Lord's Supper is such a loving cup. 
The mother who has lost a child will go to the 
drawer and take from it a faded dress or half- 
worn shoe. These are to her sad reminders of 
the little one who has gone from her arms forever. 
So the bread and wine are simply reminders of 



the lord's supper 219 

our Departed One. Monuments are erected to 
distinguished men, such, for instance, as the 
Washington Monument to George Washington, 
towering 555 feet in the air and seen for many 
miles around. The Memorial Supper is simply a 
monument we erect to our Lord, not erected as the 
Washington Monument, in one place, but erected 
continually all over the world. Wherever his 
followers are to be found, there they gather to- 
gether and every week, or month, or quarter, or 
year, they erect this monument to commemorate 
the death of their Lord and to proclaim the fact 
that his body was broken and his blood was shed 
for them. This monument, thus erected continu- 
ally all over the world, is more permanent than 
marble, more enduring than bronze. 

But the question comes, who should partake of 
the Supper? The Baptists are frequently accused 
of believing in "close communion," and they are 
charged on that account with being a narrow and 
bigoted sect. We are sometimes told that if they 
would only do away with their close communion, 
Baptists would take the world. With reference 
to this let me say : 

1. Some Baptists, like the Particular Baptists 
of England, or the Free- Will Baptists of this 
country, have done away with "close communion. " 
And, yet, they have not taken the world. On the 
contrary, they have not grown to any appreciable 
extent, while those Baptists who do believe in 



220 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



"close communion" outnumber them, both in 
England and in America, especially in America. 

2. The question with Baptists is not one of 
policy, but of principle. Even if they could take 
the world by becoming open communionists, they 
would not do so, because it would mean the sur- 
render of principle, and when a Baptist surrenders 
principle he ceases to be a Baptist. 

Suppose, however, instead of using the word 
"close" communion, we use the word "restricted" 
communion. It means practically the same thing, 
but expresses the Baptist idea better. Should 
there be any restrictions at all to participation in 
the Supper? If you say no, then you throw it 
open to everybody — infidels, murderers, thieves, 
anybody who may wish to partake of it. "Oh," 
it is said, "we do not mean that it should be thrown 
open to everybody. We believe in some restric- 
tions, of course." Well, in that case, you believe 
in restricted communion ; you are a close com- 
munionist. 

The only question is, then, what restrictions 
should be thrown around the Supper ? 

i . The first is faith. A person, before he par- 
takes of the Supper, should certainly believe on 
Christ. Paul says : "Wherefore whosoever shall 
eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an 
unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and 
blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, 
and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the 



THE LORD S SUPPER 



221 



cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and 
drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not 
the body" (i Cor. n: 27-29). By this Paul 
means to say that if a person does not discern in 
the bread and the wine the body and blood of the 
Lord, but partakes of them simply as common 
bread and wine, he brings condemnation or judg- 
ment upon himself. That is to say, he must be- 
lieve on Christ as his Saviour, and must recognize 
the bread and wine as symbolic of the body of 
Christ broken for him, and the blood of Christ 
shed for him. It is hardly necessary, however, to 
argue this point. Everybody admits it, and to 
that extent everybody believes in close com- 
munion. 

2. Another prerequisite to participation in the 
supper is baptism.' Why should it be ? ( 1 ) As 
I have just shown, faith is the first prerequisite. 
As I showed sometime ago, baptism is an evidence y 
an expression, of faith. Faith is inward. Bap- 
tism is outward. You cannot see faith. You 
can see baptism. The only way you can tell 
faith is by its outward expression. Baptism is 
the first and especially ordained expression of 
faith. When a person has been baptized it is pre- 
sumed that he has believed on Christ. And so, in 
order to determine whether he has the first pre- 
requisite to the supper, faith, it is simply sufficient 
to ask, has the person been baptized ? That ques- 
tion is easily answered. 



222 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

(2) The symbolism of the two ordinances 
requires that baptism shall come before the sup- 
per. Baptism symbolizes regeneration, the birth 
of the soul. The supper symbolizes life, the con- 
tinued sustenance of the soul, and its constant 
dependence on Christ as its strength and support 
and inspiration and joy. Which comes first, birth 
or life? Birth, of course. Which should come 
first, the ordinance which symbolizes birth or that 
which symbolizes life? The ordinance which 
symbolizes birth, of course — which means that 
baptism should come before the supper. 

(3) This order is scriptural. In the Great 
Commission of our Lord as given in Matthew 28 : 
19, 20, he says : "Go ye, therefore, and make dis- 
ciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit : teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I commanded you : and lo, I am with 
you always, even unto the end of the world." 
Here the order is (a) "make disciples," (b) "bap- 
tizing" those made disciples, (c) "teaching them" 
to observe all things he had commanded. One 
thing he had commanded them was the observance 
of the supper, which he had instituted the night 
before his death and had commanded them, "This 
do in remembrance of me." In Acts 2: 41, 42, 
we have an inspired commentary on the commis- 
sion : "They then that received his word were 
baptized : and there were added unto them in that 



the lord's supper 223 

day about three thousand souls. And they con- 
tinued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and 
fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the 
prayers/' Notice here: (a) They "gladly re- 
ceived his word," (b) they "were baptized," (c) 
they continued "in the breaking of bread," which 
meant the celebration of the Supper. And so 
everywhere where the supper is mentioned it is in 
connection with those of whom it is expressly 
said they had been baptized, as in Matthew 28 : 
19, 20; Acts 2 : 41, 42, which I have just quoted, 
or of whom it is presumed that they have been 
baptized, as in Acts 20: 7: "And upon the first 
day of the week, when we were gathered together 
to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, in- 
tending to depart on the morrow ; and prolonged 
his speech until midnight ;" 1 Cor. 1 1 : 20-34 : 
"When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, 
it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper : for in 
your eating each one taketh before other his own 
supper; and one is hungry, and another is 
drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and 
to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, 
and put them to shame that have not? What 
shall I say to you ? shall I praise you ? In this I 
praise you not. For I received of the Lord that 
which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord 
Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took 
bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake 
it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: 



224 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

this do in remembrance of me. In like manner 
also the cup-, after supper, saying, This cup is the 
new covenant in my blood : this do, as often as 
ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often 
as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim 
the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore who- 
soever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the 
Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of 
the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a 
man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, 
and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and 
drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto him- 
self, if he discern not the body. For this cause 
many among you are weak and sickly and not a 
few sleep/' 

(4) All denominations admit that baptism 
comes before the supper. So true is this, in fact, 
that Dr. J. T. Christian says in his "Close Com- 
munion :** "No one in all antiquity denies that 
baptism and church membership preceded the 
Lord's Supper." Again : 'There is not a stand- 
ard historian who gives any account of open com- 
munion for the first sixteen hundred years after 
Christ." Dr. H. C. Vedder says, in his "Short 
History of the Baptists :" "Among all the 'here- 
sies' recorded in ecclesiastical literature, before 
the seventeenth century, there is no record of any 
who held that the unbaptized have a right to the 
Supper of the Lord." In the Appendix he has 
an article on " 'Open' Communion Unhistorical," 



the lord's supper 225 

which begins : " 'Open communion/ that is, the 
inviting to the table of the Lord those who have 
not been baptized on profession of faith, which 
alone is a real baptism, is unscriptural, illogical, 
and unhistorical." Dr. Vedder then proceeds to 
verify the latter assertion by quotations from 
Baptist confessions, "from the earliest times until 
now/ 7 These confessions, he says, "show plainly 
what Baptists of all ages have believed the scrip- 
tures to teach in the matter of Christ's ordinances/' 
He closes the article with the following remark : 
"Open communion was never more than the tol- 
erated weakness of a small minority of Baptists, 
except in England during the present century/' 

I give a few quotations from prominent writers 
of other denominations : Among the Episco- 
palians, Dr. Wall says : "For no church ever gave 
the communion to any persons before they were 
baptized. . . . Since among all of the absurd- 
ities that ever were held, none ever maintained 
that any person should partake of the communion 
before he was baptized/' At the close of the 
rubric on Confirmation the Prayer Book says : 
"And there shall none be admitted to the Holy 
Communion, until such a time as he be confirmed, 
or be ready and desirous to be confirmed/' Bishop 
T. U. Dudley said in a letter to Dr. Christian : 
"No unbaptized person may receive the Holy 
Communion/' 

The Presbyterian Confession of Faith says : 

15 



226 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

'There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ 
our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, baptism and 
the Supper of the Lord." Dr. Theodore L. 
Cuyler, the distinguished writer, for thirty years 
pastor of the Lafayette Square Presbyterian 
Church, Brooklyn, said : 

"i. The terms of communion in the Presbyte- 
rian Church require a previous open confession of 
the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. That 
presupposes a membership in some evangelical 
church. 

"2. Baptism is an essential part of an open pro- 
fession of Jesus Christ, and of reception into the 
visible church. 

"3. I do not suppose there is any difference 
between the Presbyterians and the Baptists in the 
terms of communion. " 

The eminent historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, says : 
"The communion is for baptized believers, and 
for them only." Dr. B. M. Palmer, for many 
years pastor in New Orleans, says : "The terms 
of communion with us are the profession of sav- 
ing faith in Christ and the public acknowledg- 
ment of this in baptism." 

The New York Observer, the oldest Presbyte- 
rian paper in this country, says : "It is not a want 
of charity which compels the Baptist to restrict 
his invitation. He has no hesitation in admitting 
the personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. 
Presbyterians do not invite the unbaptized, how- 



the lord's supper 227 

ever pious they may be. It is not uncharitable. 
It is not bigotry on the part of the Baptists to 
confine their communion to those whom they con- 
sider the baptized." 

Dr. John Hall, one of the greatest Presbyterian 
preachers in this country, says : "I think that all 
evangelical churches look for baptized persons as 
communicants. The Baptists differ from their 
brethren as to the time and mode of baptism. I 
do not think the Baptists and Presbyterians differ 
in any respect as to the terms of communion at 
the Lord's table." 

The Interior, the Presbyterian organ in Chi- 
cago, said in a recent editorial : 'The difference 
between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an 
important difference. We agree with them, how- 
ever, in saying unbaptized persons should not 
partake of the Lord's Supper. Their views 
compel them to believe that we are not baptized, 
and shut them up to close communion. Close 
communion, in our judgment, is a more defens- 
ible position than open communion, which is justi- 
fied on the ground that baptism is not a prerequi- 
site to the partaking of the Supper. To chide 
Baptists with bigotry because they abide by the 
logical consequence of their system is absurd. 
We think that they are wrong in reference to the 
mode and subjects of baptism, and should not hes- 
itate to take grounds against their interpretation ; 
but we would not be silent about their interpreta- 



228 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

tion, and then charge them with bigotry for a 
consistent adherence to their interpretation." 

Henry Ward Beecher, in the Christian Union, 
said: "A Pedobaptist who believes that baptism 
is a prerequisite to communion has no right to 
censure the Baptist churches for close communion. 
On this question there is a great deal of pulling 
out of motes by people whose own vision is not 
clear. . . . We have no disposition to join 
in the censure which is so freely bestowed upon 
Baptists for their principles and practice of 
restricted communion. Their course on this 
question, however mistaken, is certainly consist-, 
ent, and we must yield them the respect due to all 
who adhere firmly to their conscientious convic- 
tions." 

Dr. John Hall declared, concerning those who 
censure the Baptists for their restricted com- 
munion, as follows : "Whether their assailants act 
wisely or kindly in that matter, or not, is an open 
question. It is a course of doubtful catholicity 
to raise a popular cry against a most valuable body 
of people who honestly and consistently go through 
with what they deem an important principle." 

The Methodists take the same position as the 
Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The Methodist 
Discipline says : "There are two sacraments or- 
dained of Christ our Lord in the gospel ; that is to 
say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." In a 
sermon preached by John Wesley, the founder of 



THE LORD S SUPPER 



229 



Methodism, on "Do this in remembrance of me," 
he laid down baptism as a prerequisite to com- 
munion. Commenting upon a letter received 
from one J. M. Bolzins, he says : "And yet this 
very man, when I was in Savannah, did I refuse 
to admit to the Lord's table, because he was not 
baptized by a minister who had been episcopally 
ordained." 

Dr. Hibbard, a prominent Methodist writer, 
says: "In one principle the Baptist and Pedo- 
baptist churches agree. They both agree in 
rejecting from communion at the table of the 
Lord and in denying the rights of church fellow- 
ship to all who have not been baptized. Valid 
baptism they consider as essential to constitute 
visible church membership. This also we hold. 
The only question, then, that here divides us, is, 
What is essential to valid baptism? The Bap- 
tists, in passing the sweeping sentence of disfran- 
chisement upon all other Christian churches, have 
acted upon a principle held in common with all 
other Christian churches, viz. : that baptism is 
essential to church membership. They have 
denied our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, 
we have been excluded from their table." Again : 
"The charge of close communion is no more appli- 
cable to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the 
question of church fellowship with them is deter- 
mined by as liberal principles as it is w T ith any 
other Protestant church, so far, I mean, as the 



230 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

present subject is concerned — i. e., it is determined 
by valid baptism." 

The New York Christian Advocate says: 
'There is no authority, Scriptural or Methodistic, 
for making the invitation general/' 

Dr. Miles G. Bullock, pastor of the East Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, Oswego, N. Y., says : 
"Now summarize a little. A Baptist maintains 
that only believers are to be baptized : hence, in- 
fant baptism is nonsense ; baptism is baptism only 
by immersion; baptized believers only have any 
right to the Lord's table. How can they, there- 
fore, consistently invite or allow me, having only 
been sprinkled, and that in infancy, to commune 
with them? Do they keep me away from the 
Lord's table, or is it I who am responsible for this 
neglect of this sacrament, having refused to com- 
ply with the essential conditions of its reception? 
Close communion, as it is generally termed, is the 
only logical and correct course for Baptist 
churches to pursue. If their premises are right, 
the conclusion is surely just as it should be. Let 
us honor them for stern steadfastness in maintain- 
ing what they believe to be a Bible precept, rather 
than criticise and censure because they differ with 
us concerning the intent and mode of Christian 
baptism, and believe it to be an irrepealable condi- 
tion of coming to the Lord's Supper." 

Let us see what our Disciple brethren have to 
say about the matter. Alexander Campbell said 



the lord's supper 231 

in the Christian Baptist: "But I object to making 
it a rule, in any case, to receive unimmersed per- 
sons to church ordinances : ist. Because it is no- 
where commanded. 2d. Because it is nowhere 
precedented in the New Testament. 3d. Because 
it necessarily corrupts the simplicity and uniform- 
ity of the whole genius of the New Testament. 
4th. Because it not only deranges the order of the 
kingdom, but makes void one of the most impor- 
tant institutions ever given to man. It necessa- 
rily makes immersion of non-effect. 5th. Because 
in making a canon to dispense with a divine insti- 
tution of momentous import, they who do so 
assume the very dispensing power which issued in 
that tremendous apostacy which we and all Chris- 
tians are laboring to destroy." 

The Apostolic Times said editorially : "I do 
not believe that the unimmersed can sit at the 
Lord's table ; at least I do not believe that they do 
it. Hence, with me, a table set by them is not the 
Lord's table ; and I would not eat at it. . . . 
From the preceding it would appear that I am a 
close communionist This I certainly am, in the 
severest, true sense of the term." Again : "Open 
communion will not only kill Baptist churches ; 
but any other churches holding immersion as the 
one baptism, in which it is adopted." And again : 
"Baptists, however, do not allow anything to be 
baptism but the immersion of a believer; and in 
this the disciples are in perfect agreement with 



232 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



them ; hence, neither of these churches can consist- 
ently advocate open communion." 

One of the most prominent Disciples, Moses E. 
Lard, says : "In the outset of the reformation, 
our motto was : And thus saith the Lord for every 
article of our faith, a precept, or precedent for all 
we do. In the light of this cherished postulate, 
what defense can we plead for our act, when we 
sit down to commune with the unimmersed ? . . . 
But suppose a man to be a true believer in Christ, 
to be truly penitent, to be sprinkled and not im- 
mersed, and sincerely to think this baptism, to be 
strictly a moral man, and to feel in his heart that 
he is a Christian — what then ? May he not com- 
mune ? I answer, yes ; provided it can be shown 
that sincerely thinking so transmutes an act of 
sprinkling into an act of immersion or causes God 
to accept the thing he has not appointed for the 
thing he has." 

Another prominent Disciple, Prof. J. W. Mc- 
Garvey, of the Bible College, Lexington, Ky., 
says : "We believe that faith, repentance and bap- 
tism are the scriptural prerequisites to the Lord's 
Supper, and that no believer is entitled to the 
ordinance until he has been baptized. We believe 
the privilege belongs to all baptized believers, and 
to those who are leading an orderly life, and to 
none others." 

And thus, you see, the leading men of all the 
principal denominations agree with the Baptists 



THE LORD S SUPPER 



233 



that baptism comes before the supper. The real 
question which divides Baptists from other de- 
nominations is, What is baptism? This question 
I discussed at length, and I think I showed beyond 
a doubt that immersion, and immersion alone, is 
baptism. Unless, therefore, a person has been 
immersed, he is not entitled to partake of the 
supper. 

But, it may be said, there are some people in 
other denominations who have been immersed. 
Why not commune with them? This brings us 
to a third prerequisite to the supper : 

3. An orderly walk. Paul says : "Now I be- 
seech you, brethren, mark them that are causing 
the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary 
to the doctrine which ye learned : and turn away 
from them" (Rom. 16: 17). Again: "But as 
it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any 
man^that is named a brother be a fornicator, or 
covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a 
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a 
one no, not to eat" ( 1 Cor. 5 : 11). And 
again : "Now we command you, brethren, in 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
ye withdraw yourselves from every brother 
that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradi- 
tion which they received of us" (2 Thess. 3:6). 

In these passages Paul distinctly commands 
that we withdraw from those who walk disorderly 
and that we shall not "eat" with them. Who is 



234 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

it walks disorderly ? Let Paul answer : One who 
does not walk "after the tradition ... re- 
ceived of us" — the tradition of the "faith once for 
all delivered to the saints" — one who causes 
"divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary 
to the doctrine which ye learned." 

On this point the Methodist Discipline says 
clearly : "No person shall be admitted to the 
Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of any prac- 
tice for which we would exclude a member of our 
church." The question arises : For what would 
a member be excluded from the Methodist 
Church ? The Discipline answers : A member 
shall be excluded for endeavoring "to sow dis- 
sension in any of our Societies by inveighing 
against either our doctrine or discipline." 

But does not Paul say: "Let a man examine 
himself and so let him eat?" Yes. But this was 
addressed to those who had been baptized. It 
was not addressed to every one, but to Christians. 
But, says someone, "Will we not commune with 
each other in Heaven? And if so, why should 
we not commune with each other here on earth?" 
The communion in heaven will be a very different 
kind of communion from that of the Lord's Sup- 
per. It will be simply a spiritual communion. 
Christians of all denominations have such com- 
munion now. But the supper is a material ordi- 
nance with a spiritual significance. 

But some one asks, May I not commune with 



the lord's supper 235 

my father or mother or wife or husband or child 
or friend? Must the fact that I have not been 
immersed, while they have, keep me from com- 
muning with them ?" Such a person forgets that 
the Supper is not a communion with each other, 
but with Christ. When you sit at the supper of 
the Lord, you are not to think of father or mother 
or wife or husband or child or friend, though 
they may be sitting next to you, but of Christ, your 
Saviour, whose body was broken and whose blood 
was shed for you. 

It may be asked, What is it to eat and drink 
"unworthily ?" Does it mean that if I am un- 
worthy, I must not eat and drink of the Supper, 
because in so doing I will be eating and drinking 
damnation to myself? Let us see about that. 
Notice, in the first place, that it is not "damna- 
tion," but condemnation a person brings on him- 
self if he eats and drinks unworthily. Notice 
again that the word "unworthily" is not an adjec- 
tive, but an adverb. It does not describe the 
person eating, but the manner of his eating. It 
does not say if he is unworthy when he eats, but 
if he eats "in an unworthy manner" — that is, as 
Paul tells us in the same verse, if in eating he 
does not discern the body of the Lord, if he does 
not recognize in the bread and the wine the sym- 
bols of the broken body and shed blood of Jesus, 
but partakes of them simply as bread and w T ine for 
food, as some of those Corinthians were doing — 



236 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



then he brings condemnation on himself. That 
is the meaning of the passage. 

No, it does not say if the person who eats is 
unworthy. All Christians feel their unworthi- 
ness. And the better Christians they are the 
more they feel their unworthiness. Paradoxical 
as it may sound, the more they feel their worthi- 
ness the more unworthy they are. And on the 
other hand, the more they feel their unworthiness, 
the more worthy they are. For then they look, 
not to their own worthiness, but to Christ's worthi- 
ness. They trust, not in their merits, but in the 
merits of Christ; not in anything they can do, 
but in what he has done ; not in their works, but 
in his blood. And so every time they eat the 
bread and drink the wine, they say : 'This bread 
represents the body of Christ which was broken 
for me, and this wine represents the blood of 
Christ which was shed for me. As I partake of 
them they symbolize for me my own weakness, 
my own sinfulness, and indicate my own depend- 
ence upon Christ as my strength, my sustenance, 
my inspiration, my joy. They proclaim the Lord's 
death, and they express the fact that his death was 
for me, for me" 

This is what the Supper means, and this is all 
it means. But meaning this, it means so much. 



LETTER NO. 20 



CONGREGATIONALISM . 

My Dear Son : — We have seen the principles 
which Baptists hold and teach as to their members. 
Now the question comes, what kind of organiza- 
tion should they have for the expression and 
propagation of these principles? What form of 
church government should they have ? There are 
four forms of church government : 

i. Hierarchical. This is the Catholic idea. 
It is monarchical and despotic, under the absolute 
rule and sway of one man. It corresponds to the 
monarchical form of civil government, such as 
that of Russia or Turkey. 

2. The Episcopal, the rule by bishops. This 
is the Episcopal and Methodist Episcopal form. 
It corresponds to a limited monarchy, such as that 
of Germany or England. 

3. The Presbyterial form, the rule by a presby- 
tery or eldership. This is the Presbyterian and 
Campbellite form. It corresponds to an oligarch- 
ical form of civil government, or government by 
a few, such as the Triumvirate of Rome or the 
Directory of France in Napoleon's time. 

4. The Congregational form, or government 
by the congregation, which means by all the 

(237) 



238 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

people, instead of by one, as in the hierarchical, 
or by a few, as in the Episcopal or Presbyterial 
form. This corresponds to a democratic form of 
civil government, as in the United States or 
France. This form, as the name democratic im- 
plies, means the rule of the people, of all the peo- 
ple. The hierarchical form presupposes ignorance 
of the constituent members and presumes that they 
are not capable of governing themselves. So 
also, to a greater or less extent, as to the Episcopal 
form. But the Congregational form presupposes 
the intelligence of its constituent members. 

The various forms of church government cor- 
respond to and are largely the outgrowth of the 
doctrines of the different denominations. Take 
the Catholics and Baptists, who occupy opposite 
extremes. Believing in a formal and ceremonial 
refigion, practicing infant baptism and consider- 
ing that the child is saved in baptism and has no 
need for a regeneration of his heart afterward, 
the Catholic feels the need of a strong government 
to control the ignorant, unregenerate mass of 
members thus introduced into the Catholic church. 

The Baptist, on the other hand, with his prin- 
ciple of regeneration before church membership, 
assumes that the membership of the church is 
composed of regenerated, intelligent individuals, 
each one responsible and reliable, and consequently 
that they are capable of self-government and do 
not need any one to direct their actions and die- 



CONGREGATIONALISM 239 

tate their course as to matters either of doctrine 
or polity. It is simply a different way of looking 
at things. 

It depends largely on the point of view as to 
which form of church government is better. 
From the Catholic point of view an hierarchical 
form is perhaps better. But from the Baptist 
point of view the democratic form is certainly 
better. From that view point, presuming that all 
the members of the church are regenerated and 
are intelligent, it is the ideal form. While it is 
true that not all the members of Baptist churches 
are regenerated and are intelligent, still they must 
all profess to be regenerated and are all presumed 
to be intelligent, so that they can be trusted to 
govern themselves. Besides, Christianity is a 
religion of ideals. It proposes to bring the people 
up to the standard and not lower the standard to 
suit the people. But are there not apt to be 
diversities of opinion among the members if the 
decision of matters is left entirely to them ? Well, 
yes, just as there are apt to be diversities of 
opinion among any men of intelligence anywhere. 
Men do not always see things alike. "Many men 
of many minds" is as true of church members as 
it is of other people. Will not these diversities of 
opinion lead to strifes and divisions ? Not neces- 
sarily, but often so. Then who is to settle these 
differences ? Should there not be some one with 
authority to do so? Well, you may generally 



240 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

trust to the sanctified common sense of regener- 
ated, intelligent people to settle their own differ- 
ences. Or, if they cannot come to an agreement, 
they can call on their brethren to help them adjust 
these differences. If they must be settled by some 
one on the outside, some one in authority who 
can force a settlement, whether satisfactory or 
not, then the freedom and the individuality of the 
members are destroyed. It is certainly better 
that the members should fight out their differences 
among themselves and reach, as they are apt to 
do, a satisfactory basis of agreement by mutual 
concessions, or by acknowledgment of error on 
the part of one or the other, or by voluntarily 
leaving the matter to their brethren, than that 
these differences should be settled through force 
by some outside authority and at the expense of 
freedom and individualism. 

Is it not true, though, that under this system we 
often have churchless pastors and pastorless 
churches, for the reason that there is no one to 
say to one pastor, Come, and he cometh ; and to 
another, Go, and he goeth ? Under other systems 
does not every church have a pastor and every 
pastor a church? Often so. And so far, so good. 
But sometimes it happens that the church does not 
want the pastor, and the pastor does not want the 
church. Is it not better sometimes to have a 
churchless pastor or a pastorless church than to 
have a church with a pastor it does not want or a 



CONGREGATIONALISM 241 

pastor with a church he does not want? Better 
voluntary rather than compulsory marriage. 
Compulsory marriage is the European idea, volun- 
tary marriage the American. And so is it not 
better to have a voluntary rather than a compul- 
sory marriage of pastor and church? Is it not, 
as in civil marriage, apt to prove happier? It 
may be hard sometimes for a church to get a pas- 
tor, and then perhaps harder to get rid of him. 
But the first may be accomplished by prayer and 
the second by patience. 

Others are coming to adopt the Baptist view 
of church government. 

The Christian Advocate, of this city, said some 
time ago : 

"There are hundreds of men in the ministry of 
Methodism today who are utter failures. Whose is the 
blame that they are there and that they stay there? In 
every other denomination the minister that cannot suc- 
ceed is allowed to drop out by the force of circum- 
stances, but Methodism seems to be unable to retire in- 
competent men. It is an open secret that men have held 
important offices in the church for many years, while 
the whole time they were recognized as palpable fail- 
ures. For an inefficient man to remain in a Conference 
is not only an injustice to the people that he is sent to 
serve, but to the church that he represents and to him- 
self and family as well. The ministry has been depre- 
ciated in the estimation of the people by the retention 
of such men." 



Our Methodist friends frequently boast that 

16 



242 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

their polity provides a church for every man and 
a man for every church. I have asked the ques- 
tion, though, "Suppose the church does not want 
the man and the man does not want the church, 
what then?" These words of the Christian Ad- 
vocate are strong confirmatory testimony as to the 
advantage of the Baptist voluntary system rather 
than the Methodist compulsory system of securing 
pastors for churches. 

Not long ago the Christian Advocate said in an 
editorial on "The Making of Appointments :" 

"Why should we deprecate and even strive to ignore 
the growth of a spirit of independence and self-help 
on the part of the local congregations? Is this not 
precisely what we have been striving a hundred years 
to produce? The sense of solidarity, of genuine spir- 
itual and corporate life in the individual church is one 
of the best possible symptoms. It means that the 
Lord's work will be done, his kingdom established. 
And would not such a church be beneath respect if it 
had no choice as to who should be its pastor? Instead 
of discouraging our congregations from taking a hand 
in this matter, we should praise them for it." 

This is the strongest and most candid expres- 
sion that I have ever seen of the growing spirit of 
Congregationalism among our Methodist brethren. 
Evidently the leaven of Baptist influence is 
working. 

For twelve years Dr. (now Bishop) E. E. Hoss 
was editor of the Christian Advocate, this city. 



CONGREGATIONALISM 243 

During that time I was editor of the Baptist and 
Reflector. We were good friends personally, and 
warm allies in the temperance cause. As many 
of our readers will perhaps remember, we used to 
have frequent discussions, and especially upon the 
subject of church government, he contending for 
the Methodist Episcopal compulsory form of gov- 
ernment, which is only a modified monarchical 
form, an oligarchy in place of a monarchy, and I 
for a simple democratic, voluntary, congregational 
New Testament (as I believe) form of govern- 
ment. Many a time did he and I cross editorial 
swords on this question. 

Imagine my surprise and gratification, there- 
fore, in reading a very interesting article from his 
pen in the Christian Advocate recently on 'The 
Democratic Age/' to find the following expres- 
sions : 

"The age in which we live is by eminence a demo- 
cratic age. The old notion of rulership by divine right 
has gone out forever, and into its place has come, in 
Church and State alike, the notion of the sovereignty 
of the people, often taking on an exaggerated form and 
issuing in the most damaging consequences, and yet, 
at its core, essentially true and right. While it cannot 
be admitted that the voice of the people is always the 
voice of God, still less can it be allowed that the voice 
of hereditary sovereigns is entitled to that distinction." 

What about the voice of Bishops ? It is said 
that the Methodist preachers who get good ap- 



244 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

pointments think that the voice of the Bishop is 
the voice of God, but those whose appointments 
are not satisfactory are rather doubtful about the 
matter. At any rate there is a growing disposi- 
tion on the part of our Methodist friends to let the 
voice of the people be heard, which simply means 
that they are coming more and more to the con- 
gregational form of government. It means a 
good deal when a man like Bishop Hoss recog- 
nizes that tendency. But the Bishop goes on to 
say: 

"In the future years, more than even at the present 
time, democracy is bound to prevail. Let all who are 
concerned take due notice, and set their houses in order. 
And let all who love their country and their race do 
what they can to make this many-headed sovereign com- 
petent and worthy. Nothing but intelligence, morality, 
and religion can fit the people for the efficient dis- 
charge of the functions that they will be called upon to 
perform. If these be absent, woe, woe, to the republic 
and to the world." 

This is fair warning, and it comes from an 
authoritative source. I hope our Methodist 
brethren will take heed to it in time, for as Bishop 
Hoss indicated, this democratic spirit is abroad in 
the land in a religious, as well as in a political, 
sense. 

What Bishop Hoss says about the importance 
of educating the masses, those who are to be the 
sovereign rulers in State and church, I and other 



CONGREGATIONALISM 245 

Baptists have frequently said. If the individual 
is to rule, he ought to be intelligent, that he may 
rule wisely. It is very gratifying to hear a person 
like Bishop Hoss state the Baptist position so 
strongly. 

The Bishop is right about it. This is the dem- 
ocratic age, the age of the people's rule, when not 
one man, but every man, is sovereign; when we 
have a government "of the people, for the people, 
and by the people/' and not a government of the 
few, for the few, and by the few. 

This is the American idea. And it is the Bap- 
tist idea. And that is why in this democratic age, 
and especially here in democratic America, Bap- 
tists flourish as they have never flourished before. 
They are at last coming into their own. 

This is the American idea. It is the Baptist 
idea. And it is the Scriptural idea. The Scrip- 
tures teach the necessity for regeneration of the 
individual. They teach the responsibility of this 
individual to God, and consequently his need of 
intelligence to properly discharge this responsi- 
bility. And they teach a simple form of govern- 
ment for this regenerated intelligent individual, a 
government with these regenerated intelligent 
individuals as the source of authority, under God, 
and with two sets of officers, both elected by them 
to execute their will, bishops and deacons — bish- 
ops to look after the spiritual aflfairs and deacons 



246 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

after the temporal affairs of the church. The 
bishops are also called pastors or elders. 

That there are these two sets of officers, with 
general duties as indicated, is evident from the 
following passages : 

"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called 
to him the elders of the church." '"Take heed unto 
yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy 
Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the 
Lord which he purchased with his own blood'' (Acts 
20: 17, 28). "Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ 
Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at 
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons' (Phil. 1: 1). 
"The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a 
fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, 
who am also a partaker of the glory, that shall be re- 
vealed : Tend the flock of God which is among you. 
exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but will- 
ingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy 
lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5: 1, 2). ''Faith- 
ful is the saying, If a man seekcth the office of a bishop, 
he desireth a good work. The bishop therefore must 
be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temper- 
ate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to 
teach: no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not conten- 
tious; no lover of money; one that ruleth will his 
own house, having his children in subjection with all 
gravity: (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his 
own house, how shall he take care of the church of 
God?) not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into 
the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have 
good testimony from them that are without ; lest he fall 
into reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3: 
i-7). 



CONGREGATIONALISM 247 

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should- 
est set in order the things that were wanting, and 
appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; if 
any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having 
children that believe, who are not accused of riot or 
unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as blame- 
less as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, 
no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but 
given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober-minded, 
just, holy, self-controlled; holding to the faithful word 
which is according to the teaching, that he may be 
able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to con- 
vict the gainsayers" (Titus i: 5"9)- 

"Now in these days, when the number of the dis- 
ciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the 
Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their 
widows were neglected in the daily ministration. And 
the twelve called the multitude of disciples unto them, 
and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word 
of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore, breth- 
ren, from among you seven men of good report, full 
of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint 
over 'this business. But we will continue steadfastly in 
prayer, and in the ministry of the word. And the say- 
ing pleased the whole multitude : and they chose 
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, 
and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, 
and Parmenas, and Nicolaus a proselyte of Antioch ; 
whom they set before the apostles : and when they had 
prayed, they laid their hands upon them" (Acts 6: 1-6). 

"Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double- 
tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy- 
lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure con- 
science. And let these also first be proved ; then let 
them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. Women 
in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temper- 



248 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

ate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of 
one wife, ruling their children and their own houses 
well. For they that have served well as deacons gain 
to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in 
the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (i Tim. 3: 8-13). 



LETTER NO. 21 



CHURCH INDEPENDENCE AND CHURCH INTER- 
DEPENDENCE. 

My Dear Son : — We have seen that a congre- 
gational form of government for each church is 
the proper and scriptural form — that is to say, 
that each church is governed, not by any outside 
authority, such as pope or bishop or presbytery, 
but by its own members, under God, with Christ 
at its head, the Bible as its chart, and the Holy 
Spirit as its guide. Each church is independent 
of any outside influence. Each church is also 
independent of every other church, so far as 
regards any other church exercising authority or 
control over that church. In Baptist nomencla- 
ture there is no such thing as ecclesiastical author- 
ity, except as it may refer to the authority of each' 
individual church. In this sense each church is 
complete in itself. 

But while Baptists believe in church independ- 
ence, they believe also in church interdependence 
— the dependence of each Baptist church upon 
other Baptist churches, not in the sense that other 
Baptist churches control any Baptist church, but 
in the same sense that each individual is depend- 
ent upon other individuals in society ; in the same 

(249 > 



250 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

sense that each member of the body is dependent 
upon other members of the body. Each church 
is correlated with other churches. It unites with 
other churches for greater efficiency in carrying 
on the work which each is set to do, and which no 
one church can do so effectively as when in coop- 
eration with other churches — the work of saving 
souls. It does not need the cooperation of other 
churches in carrying on this work in the territory 
of its own immediate field. But as the territory 
broadens it finds itself unable to cope alone with 
the immense task before it and must unite with 
other churches for the accomplishment of the 
task. For this reason we have what are called 
Associations, composed of a number of churches, 
usually from twenty to thirty, associated together 
and cooperating together in the larger work of 
saving souls within the bounds of the Association. 
As the territory broadens still more, we have our 
State Conventions, in which all the Baptist 
churches in a State are, or are supposed to be, in 
cooperation with each other for the salvation of 
every one in the bounds of that State. Then, as 
the work broadens still more, all the churches in 
all the Associations in all the States in the South 
unite in the Southern Baptist Convention, for the 
salvation of every soul in the South, and of every 
soul in the world. 

All of these Associations and State Conven- 
tions and the Southern Baptist Convention have 



INDEPENDENCE AND INTERDEPENDENCE 251 

what are termed Boards or Executive Committees 
to carry on the work during the year, while the 
Association or Convention is not in session. The 
members of these Boards or Committees receive 
no salary. They may, and usually do, employ 
Corresponding Secretaries, who give all of their 
time to the work, and, of course, must be paid for 
their services. But they make their salaries 
many times over by their labors in sermons and 
speeches and writings and influence. They plan 
and direct the work in connection with the Boards 
or Executive Committees. 

Besides the direct work of saving souls, these 
Associations and Conventions may engage in the 
work of education, both theological and literary, 
of colportage, of caring for the orphans and the 
aged ministers, of temperance — all having as 
their common ultimate aim the salvation of souls 
and the conversion of the world to Christ. 

The churches, then, are independent so far as 
ecclesiastical authority is concerned, but interde- 
pendent so far as concerns their cooperation in the 
great work of carrying out the commission of 
their Lord and Master to "go into all the world 
and preach the gospel to every creature." This 
commission is binding upon every Baptist, and so 
upon every Baptist church. In other words, 
every Baptist church must be a missionary church. 
A Baptist church which is not missionary is a 
misnomer. It is not a true Baptist church. Bap- 



252 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

tist churches being, then, essentially Missionary 
churches, it is not only proper that they should be 
associated with other Baptist churches in Asso- 
ciations, Conventions, etc., in carrying on mission 
work of all kinds, but it is their duty to do so, 
because in this way they can carry on that work 
much more effectively than they could separately. 
And so, besides the independence of the churches 
from an ecclesiastical and doctrinal standpoint, 
we have the interdependence of the churches 
from the missionary standpoint. 



LETTER NO. 22 



BAPTISTS IN HISTORY. 

My Dear Son : — We have seen the principles 
held and taught by the people called Baptists. 
Now let us see what influence these Baptists with 
such principles have exerted on the world. 

Baptists have had a noble history. We can 
tell exactly where the Catholics, Episcopalians, 
Methodists, Presbyterians, Disciples, all started. 
We can put our finger upon the year of their 
birth — the Catholics in 606, the Lutherans in 
1524, the Episcopalians in 1531, the Presbyte- 
rians in 1536, the Methodists in 1784, the Cum- 
berland Presbyterians in 1810, the Disciples in 
1828, etc. But not so with the Baptists. "Their 
origin," said Mosheim, "is buried in the depths of 
antiquity." You cannot put your finger upon any 
year this side of the Apostles and say that the 
Baptists originated then. The only place to look 
for their origin is in the New Testament. It was 
then they started. And they have been in the 
world ever since. It is not claimed that you 
can trace their history distinctly all down the ages. 
This is due to several reasons : 

1. During the Dark Ages, for a period of about 
a thousand years, there was little history of any- 

(253) 



254 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



thing or anybody to trace. It was all a dull 
monotony. 

2. There were few historians during the 
period. Learning almost disappeared from the 
earth. What little there was took refuge in 
Catholic monasteries. 

3. As indicated by the above fact, the his- 
torians were all hostile to Baptists, and made men- 
tion of them as little as possible, and then only to 
condemn some doctrine or practice of the Baptists. 

But despite these things, the following facts 
stand out: All down the ages there have been 
people holding essential Baptist principles, such 
as the Novatianists in 250, the Donatists in 311, 
the Cathari in 455, the Paulieians in 656, the 
Vaudois in 750, the Petrobrusians in 11 10, the 
Henricians in 1135, the Albigenses in 1180, the 
Waldenses in 1300, the Anabaptists in 1450, the 
Mennonites in 1530. 

It is not claimed that all of these sects held all 
Baptist principles, but that all of them held some 
Baptist principle — some essential Baptist prin- 
ciple — so as to differentiate them from other de- 
nominations besides Baptists and classify them 
more or less distinctly as Baptists. For instance, 
the fundamental principle of the Petrobrusians, as 
shown by their bitter enemy and persecutor, Peter 
the Venerable, Abbott of Clugny, was the rejec- 
tion of tradition and an appeal to Scripture as the 
sole authority in religion. The second capital 



BAPTISTS IN HISTORY 255 

error ascribed to the Petrobrusians by their oppo- 
nent is that "they held the church to be a spiritual 
body, composed only of believers, and that baptism 
ought to be administered only to such as have 
believed on Christ." Also according to him they 
denied "that children, before they reached the age 
of understanding, can be saved by the baptism of 
Christ, or that another's faith could avail those 
who could not exercise faith since, according to 
them (the Petrobrusians) not another's, but their 
own faith saves. " They "repudiate the sacrifice 
of the mass. They denied the doctrine of pur- 
gatory and of prayers for the dead, taught that 
churches ought not to be built, that crosses should 
be pulled down and destroyed, and the like/' 
These are nearly all pretty good Baptist doctrines. 
Says Dr. H. C. Vedder : "Anybody that holds to 
the supremacy of the Scriptures, a spiritual church, 
and believers' baptism, is fundamentally one with 
the Baptist churches of today, whatever else it 
may add to or omit from its statement of beliefs." 
The Henricians, followers of Henry of Lausanne, 
taught and practiced the baptism of believers only. 
They held to the supreme authority of the Scrip- 
tures, and rejected the authoritative claims of 
tradition and the church. These are good Bap- 
tist doctrines also that far. 

Arnold of Brescia, who flourished about the 
same time as Henry of Lausanne, and who, along 
with Henry, was a pupil of the famous Abelard 



256 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

of France, was the first to proclaim with insist- 
ence and eloquence, the doctrine of soul-liberty 
and the separation between church and State. 
Dr. Vedder says of him : "He may be fairly 
claimed by Baptists as belonging to them, since 
he was condemned by the Lateran Council for his 
rejection of infant baptism, and his Roman oppo- 
nents charge that his followers administered bap- 
tism only to believers. ,, Roman writers before 
1350, as quoted by Dr. Vedder, attribute the fol- 
lowing errors to the Waldenses : 

1. "The New Testament alone, without the 
decrees of the church, suffices for salvation, and 
whatever is not proved by the text of the Bible 
they hold to be fable." (Reinerius.) Yvonetus 
asserts that they received only the Gospels, but 
this is doubtless an error. 

2. "They say that the mass is of no value at all, 
and the church singing infernal clamor." This 
last remark, says Dr. Vedder, was "intended 
against the singing of hymns in Latin, a tongue 
not understood of the people, and is not a note of 
antipathy to singing hymns per se. In fact, their 
first literature took the form of hymns." 

3. "They alone were the Church of Christ." 
(Yvonetus.) "No one is compelled to faith; no 
one is holy but God." (Reinerius.) 

4. "They say that a man is then truly for the 
first time baptized when he is brought into their 
heresy. But some say that baptism does not 



BAPTISTS IN HISTORY 257 

profit little children, because they are never able 
actually to believe. " (Yvonetus.) "Concerning 
the baptism, they say the catechism is of no 
value/' . . . "Little children do not become 
holy through baptism." . . . "The washing 
that is given to infants does not profit." (Reine- 
rius.) "One argument of their, error is that bap- 
tism does not profit little children to salvation, 
who have neither the motive nor the act of faith, 
as it is said in the latter part of Mark, 'He who 
will not believe will be condemned/ " (Stephen 
of Bourbon.) 

5. "They do not believe it to be really the body 
and blood of Christ, but only bread blessed, which 
by a certain figure is said to be the body of Christ, 
as it is said, 'But the rock was Christ/ and similar 
passages. They observe this in their conventicles, 
reciting those words of the Gospel at their table 
and participating together as in the supper of 
Christ/' (Yvonetus.) "They say that the obla- 
tion made by priests in the mass is of no value and 
does not profit. They condemn altars. They 
say that the Holy Scriptures have the same effect 
in the vulgar tongue as in the Latin, whence they 
make (the body of Christ) in the vulgar tongue 
and give the sacraments/' (Reinerius.) 

Other less serious heresies are alleged : as that 
"the followers of Waldo all preached without 
ordination ; that they declared the Pope to be the 
head of all errors ; that confession was to be made 

17 



258 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

to God alone ; that they abhorred the sign of the 
cross." 

The earlier Waldenses also taught and prac- 
ticed the baptism of believers only. "Maintain- 
ing these views," says Dr. Vedder, "they were the 
spiritual ancestors to the Anabaptist churches 
that sprang up all over continental Europe just 
before the Lutheran Reformation." 

Among these Anabaptists were Conrad Grebel, 
Felix Mantz, George Blaurock, Ludwig Hetzer, 
in Switzerland. The Confession of Faith issued 
by these Swiss Anabaptists in 1527 is the first doc- 
ument of the kind known to be in existence. It 
teaches the baptism of believers only, the breaking 
of bread by those alone who have been baptized, 
and inculcates a pure church discipline. These are 
pretty good Baptist doctrines. In fact, the only 
fault charged against these Anabaptists by their 
contemporaries, that is supported by evidence, is 
that they had the courage and honesty to interpret 
the Scriptures as Baptists today interpret them. 

In Germany, Nicholas Storch, Marcus Stubner, 
Thomas Munzer, Balthazar Hubmaier (who was 
called by John Eck "the most eloquent man in 
Europe"), John Denck, Melchior Hoffman, were 
leaders among the Anabaptists. 

In Holland, there were the Mennonites, follow- 
ers of Menno Simons. They grasped the fun- 
damental Baptist idea of the spiritual constitution 
of the church. They baptized only those who 



BAPTISTS IN HISTORY 259 

gave credible evidence of regeneration, but some 
of them practiced pouring instead of immersion 
for baptism. 

In England, John Boucher of Kent, Thomas 
Helwys, John Smyth, William Kiffin, John Spills- 
bury, were prominent among the Anabaptists, or 
Baptists, as they came to be called. As I said 
some time ago, Dr. Some, a man of standing in 
the English Church, wrote "A Godly Treatise/' 
in which he charged the Anabaptists with holding 
the following "deadly errors :" 

"That the ministers of the gospel ought to be main- 
tained by the voluntary contributions of the people ; 

"That the civil power has no right to make and im- 
pose ecclesiastical laws; ' 

"That the high commission court was an anti-Chris- 
tian usurpation ; 

"That those who are qualified to preach ought not 
to be hindered by the civil power," etc. 

We should hardly consider these very "deadly 
errors" now. Later there were John Bunyan, 
Robert Hall, Charles Spurgeon, John Clifford. 
In America, among the earliest Baptists were 
Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist 
church, Providence, Rhode Island; John Clarke, 
founder of the First Baptist Church, Newport, 
Rhode Island ; Henry Dunster, the first president 
of Harvard College; Obadiah Holmes, who, to- 
gether with John Clarke, was fined, and on re- 
fusal to pay the fine Holmes was "whipped unmer- 



260 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

cifully" for preaching the gospel as Baptists 
believe and teach it, and many others too numer- 
ous to even mention. Drs. Dermont and Ypeig, 
who were appointed by the Government of Hol- 
land to investigate the claims of the Dutch Baptists 
to descent from the ancient Waldenses, etc., said 
in their report : 

"The Baptists, who were formerly called Anabap- 
tists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original 
Waldenses. On this account the Baptists may be con- 
sidered as the only community which has stood since 
the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society that 
has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through 
all ages." 

Mosheim says of their origin : 

"The true origin of that sect, which acquired the 
denomination of Anabaptists, by their administering 
anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to 
their communion, and derived that of Mennonites from 
the famous man to whom they owe the greatest part 
of their present felicity, is hid in the remote depths of 
antiquity. . . . The various sects were compre- 
hended under the general denomination of Anabaptists, 
on account of their opposing the baptism of infants, 
and their rebaptizing such as had received the sacra- 
ment in a state of childhood." 

One thing is certain : At the time of the Refor- < 
mation under Luther, these Anabaptists appeared 
in large numbers in all the countries of Europe. 
Says Dorner: "This malady of Anabaptism and 



BAPTISTS IN HISTORY 261 

fanaticism had, in the third and fourth decades — 
1520 to 1540 — spread like a hot fever through all 
Germany; from Suabia and Switzerland along 
the Rhine to Holland and Friesland; from Ba- 
varia, Middle Germany, Westphalia and Saxony, 
as far as Holstein." Another writer has said : 
"In the centuries that preceded, influences were 
in operation, which, growing in strength, as time 
rolled on, prepared the way for this wide-spread 
movement." 

Either these Anabaptists must have sprung up 
spontaneously as soon as the Bible was thrown 
open to the common people, thus indicating how 
readily the reading of the Bible leads to the adop- 
tion of Baptist principles, or there must have been 
many already in these countries holding essential 
Baptist principles, but hiding away from the eye 
of the world, worshiping in dens and caves of 
the forest, ready to come to light at the first oppor- 
tunity, as they did as soon as Luther led the revolt 
against Rome. Probably both of these things 
were true. Like a stream of water, the Baptists 
have come down the centuries, now flowing 
smoothly through level plains, now dashing among 
rocks, now running under ground, hidden from 
view, then bursting out into the world's view 
again, when opportunity presented, gathering 
volume and velocity as it flowed down the ages, 
but always and everywhere essentially the same 
stream. 



262 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

While we may not be able to trace a succession 
of Baptist churches all down the line of history, 
we can, as we have seen, trace a succession of 
essential Baptist principles. The existence of the 
principles would indicate the existence of the 
churches. 



LETTER NO. 23 



BAPTIST MARTYRS. 

My Dear Son : — Not only have Baptists had a 
history more or less distinct all down the ages. 
That history has been a glorious one. It has been 
glorious in the principles for which they have 
stood, and which we have been considering — the 
principles of Loyalty to God's Word, of Religious 
Liberty, of Separation of Church and State, of 
Individualism, of a Spiritual Religion, of Regen- 
eration before Church Membership, of Immer- 
sion, of Communion, of Congregationalism, of 
Church Independence, and all the minor prin- 
ciples dependent on these main principles. 

Baptist history has been glorious also in the 
way Baptists have stood for these principles, stood 
for them through good and through evil report, 
through days of prosperity and days of adversity, 
through approbation and through condemnation, 
through life and through death, through fame and 
through flame, through flood and blood and fire 
and sword. 

Baptists have never persecuted others. They 
have ever been persecuted. Their principles 
forbid their persecuting others. These very prin- 
ciples invite persecution by others. Of the va- 

(263) 



264 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

rious Baptist martyrs down the centuries, I can 
only mention a few. I pass by such Baptist mar- 
tyrs as Stephen and Paul and Peter and others in 
New Testament times, and come down to the 
days of the Anabaptists. These suffered not only 
at the hands of the Catholics, but of the Protest- 
ants under Luther and Calvin and Zwingli wher- 
ever they had the power. 

Persecutions were legalized both by civil enact- 
ment and by ecclesiastical sanction. In Germany, 
by the edict of King Ferdinand in 1527, death 
was the penalty for Anabaptism. The Emperor, 
Charles V, caused them to be hunted down and 
put to death. In 1529, at the Diet of Spires, it 
was ordained that death should be visited upon 
every 7 Anabaptist. There also met at Homburg 
in 1536, a Diet composed of the Reformers of 
Germany and their followers in Church and State. 
Luther and Melancthon were among the number. 
That body sanctioned the punishment of Anabap- 
tists, even by death, by the civil authorities. At 
the beginning of the Reformation, the first to 
suffer martyrdom in Germany were Hans Koch, 
and Leonard Meyster, who were put to death at 
Augsburg in 1524. They were said to have been 
descendants of the Bohemian and Moravian Wal- 
denses, and were placed at the head of the list of 
Anabaptist martyrs. Michael Satler, who had 
been a monk, was put to death in 1527, for uniting 
with the Anabaptists, and marrying a wife. He 



BAPTIST MARTYRS 265 

was executed in a most barbarous manner. His 
tongue was cut off, his flesh torn with red-hot 
pincers, and his body finally burned. 

Leonard Schoener, a barefooted monk, grow- 
ing disgusted with the hypocrisy and wantonness 
of the monastic orders, became an Anabaptist 
under the ministry of Hubmaier. He was an edu- 
cated man. Having preached throughout Bava- 
ria, he was beheaded, and then burned at Rotten- 
burg in 1528. Hans Schloffer was tortured with 
great cruelty. Questioned by the priest upon the 
subject of infant baptism, he answered, "that we 
must first preach the word, and baptize those only 
who hear, understand, and believe and receive it. 
This is true Christian baptism and no infant bap- 
tism. The Lord has nowhere commanded to 
baptize infants." 

At Alzey there was a wholesale slaughter of 
Anabaptists in 1529. Three hundred and fifty 
were confined in prison and literally dealt out to 
the executioner like sheep to the slaughter, as fast 
as the executioner could dispatch them. Those 
who were waiting their turn to die, sang until the 
executioner came for them. It was at this place 
— Alzey — that nine brethren and three sisters 
were imprisoned, and when they refused to re- 
nounce their faith, were put to death, the men by 
the sword and the women by drowning. A sister 
came to comfort the female prisoners while they 
were yet in prison and exhorted them to be true 



266 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

and firm, despite their sufferings, and for the sake 
of the eternal joy to come to them. For this 
visit — for comforting and strengthening these 
suffering saints— she was burned to death. 

Two yonng girls were arrested at Bamberg, 
shortly after their baptism, and after being cruelly 
tortured to make them recant, were burned to 
death. While going to the stake their tormentors 
put upon their heads, in derision, crowns of 
twisted straw, when one of the girls said to her 
companion : "Our Saviour wore a crown of 
thorns for us, and shall not we wear these harm- 
less crowns for him ? and, besides, we shall soon 
be crowned by him with glorious crowns of gold." 

Among many Christians condemned to be 
burned at Saltzburg, there was a young and beau- 
tiful girl of sixteen. Even the hearts of her per- 
secutors were moved, and after vainly trying to 
persuade her to recant, the executioner took her 
in his arms to a trough for watering horses, that 
was near by, and thrusting her head under the 
water, held it there until she was dead. 

Cornelius, a Roman Catholic writer on this 
period, says of the extent of these persecutions : 

"In Tyrol and Gorz, the number of the executions 
in the year 1531 already reached one thousand; in 
Ensisheim, six hundred; at Linz, seventy-three were 
killed in six weeks. Duke William, of Bavaria, sur- 
passing all others, issued the fearful decree to behead 
those who recanted, to burn those who refused to recant. 



BAPTIST MARTYRS 267 

Throughout the greater part of Upper Germany the 
persecutions raged like a wild chase. The blood of 
these poor people flowed like water; so they cried to 
the Lord for help. But hundreds of them, of all ages 
and both sexes, suffered the pangs of torture without a 
murmur, despised to buy their lives by recantation, 
and went to the place of execution joyful and singing 
psalms. ,, 

The Anabaptists appeared in Switzerland in 
1523. According to Erasmus, they were numer- 
ous there in 1529. They suffered there at the 
hands of the Reformers. The first decree against 
them imposing a fine, was passed by the Senate at 
Zurich, one of the Cantons, in 1525. In 1526, 
another decree was passed, making the penalty 
for Anabaptism death. It forbade believers' bap- 
tism, and compelled the baptism of infants. 

In 1527 Felix Mantz was drowned in Zurich, 
Switzerland. He was at one time a friend of the 
Swiss Reformers, but when he began to preach to 
crowds upon the unscripturalness of infant bap- 
tism and an unregenerated church membership, 
and to baptize believers, he was imprisoned by 
them. His last words were, "Into thy hands, O 
Lord, I commend my spirit." 

Balthazar Hubmaier was called "the most elo- 
quent man in Europe. " He translated the Gos- 
pels and the Epistles into the language of the 
German people, before Luther's translation of the 
Bible was published. He was a friend of the Re- 



268 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

formers, and especially of Zwingli. He came to 
reject infant baptism. He tried to induce Zwingli 
to reject it. Failing, he joined the Anabaptists 
and was baptized, with one hundred others. Soon 
afterward he baptized three hundred upon a pro- 
fession of their faith. He was seized and impris- 
oned at Zurich. A recantation was demanded. 
On one occasion a large concourse of people were 
collected in the great church by the leaders, and 
Zwingle and his companions were there to hear 
the recantation. They waited in breathless 
silence to hear him condemn Anabaptism. When 
he did break the silence, it was to reassert that 
infant baptism was without the authority of God. 
His voice was drowned in the uproar of the people, 
and above the din was heard the voice of Zwingli. 
They had argued with him in prison, and had even 
applied the tortures of the rack, to convince him 
that he was wrong, but he would not deny the 
truth, so he was hurried back to prison. It is 
said that he made a recantation afterwards, and 
was released from prison, but he was still confined 
to the city of Zurich, from which he soon escaped. 
He was not long allowed the liberty of preaching 
Christ, for he was again arrested, and taken to 
Vienna, where he was burned to death, March 10, 
1528; and at the same time his devoted wife was 
drowned in the Danube by the same unpitying 
hands. His last words were: "With joy I die 
that I mav come to the Lamb of God, that taketh 



BAPTIST MARTYRS 



269 



away the sin of the world." His wife urged him 
to constancy. 

Louis Hetzer was another intimate friend of 
Zwingli, until he adopted Anabaptist principles. 
He translated a portion of the Scriptures. He 
was beheaded at Constance in 1529. His death 
was glorious. Even his enemies were surprised 
at his calmness, his charity, his courage, his faith, 
and remarked, "Never was there such a death seen 
at Constance." 

On March 30, 1531, Sicke Snidjer, or Snyder 
(a poor tailor, as his surname implies), was con- 
demned, as the court record reads, "to be executed 
by the sword ; his body shall be laid on the wheel, 
and his head set on a stake, because he has been 
rebaptized and perseveres in that baptism ;" all of 
which was duly done. But the blood of this poor 
tailor martyr was the seed of the church. Hear- 
ing of his martyrdom, Menno Simons w T as led 
to resign his priest's office and to become an 
Anabaptist, being rebaptized on a confession of 
faith in 1536. He became a traveling evangelist, 
was a great preacher, had large audiences, made 
many converts, and wrote several important 
works. He was pursued, was hunted through all 
West Friesland, and a price was set upon his head. 
Even malefactors and murderers were offered 
pardon, the freedom of the country, the favor of 
the emperor, and a hundred carlgulden to deliver 
him to the criminal judge. After some almost 



270 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

miraculous escapes he finally died in peace on the 
estate of a kind nobleman who, beholding the 
sufferings of the Anabaptists, and observing the 
true nobility of their character, invited them to 
settle upon his estates, where he would extend to 
them his protection. Many accepted his generous 
offer, and before long whole churches were living 
there in prosperity and peace. Here, Menno lived 
the latter part of his life, sending into the countries 
around the written word of life, and here he died, 
January 13, 1559. 

Menno, as we have seen, was the founder of 
the Mennonites, who were among the spiritual 
ancestors of the present-day Baptists. 

In England about 1,400 in all were burned at 
the stake, in a period of 212 years. Of these, the 
first was William Sawtre, in 1400, and the last 
was Edward Wightman, April 11, 1612. Both 
were Baptists, as w r ere many others of the 1,400. 
Thirty-one Baptists were put to death in Holland, 
in 1539, who had fled from England. Bishop 
Latimer, in a sermon preached before Edward VI, 
referring to events in the reign of Henry VIII, 
said : "Baptists were burned in different parts of 
the kingdom, and went to death with good integ- 
rity." Among those who suffered were Joan 
Boucher, of Kent, who was burned at the stake in 
1550. She was a great Bible reader and an ear- 
nest distributor of Tyndall's New Testament. In 
1548 Humphrey Middleton, Henry Hart, George 



BAPTIST MARTYRS 



271 



Brodebridge, and Coal, and about 160 members 
of their congregation, were arrested. "It is clear 
that they were Anabaptists/' remarks Dr. Cramp, 
who also quotes Strype as saying that "they were 
the first that made separation from the Reformed 
Church of England, having gathered congrega- 
tions of their own." Middleton was kept in 
prison, and afterward burned in the reign of 
"Bloody Mary." 

In 1575 John Pieters and Henry Terwoort 
were burned to death. Terwoort was a young 
man about twenty-five years of age, and had been 
married only a few weeks. Pieters was aged, 
and had nine children dependent on his daily 
labor for support. His first wife had been mar- 
tyred at Ghent in Flanders ; and his second wife 
was the widow of a martyr. These facts were 
made known to their persecutors, and permission 
was asked that Pieters and his family might leave 
the country. But in vain. On Friday, July 22 } 
1575, they were led forth to be executed. As 
they were bound to the stake, Pieters said : "The 
holy prophets, and also Christ our Saviour, have 
gone this way before us, even from the beginning 
until now." One of the Protestant preachers 
who stood by, said, "These men believe not on 
God." Pieters replied, "We believe in one God, 
our heavenly Father Almighty, and in Jesus 
Christ, his Son." Before the fire was kindled 
they were offered life and pardon if they would 



272 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

renounce their faith; but they answered, "You 
have labored hard to drive us to you, but now, 
when placed at the stake, it is labor in vain." 
Finding that they would rather die than renounce 
their faith, the fires were kindled and these two 
faithful witnesses for the truth were burned to 
ashes. The last Baptist, as I have said, and the 
last person to suffer death by burning in England 
for their religious convictions, was Edward 
Wightman, in 1612. But many others suffered 
in other ways. 

In 1661 John James was dragged by force out 
of his pulpit, accused by suborned witnesses of 
uttering treasonable words against the king, 
which his congregation declared he had never 
uttered, and was sentenced to be hanged, drawn 
and quartered. His death was a glorious one. 
Dragged on a hurdle to Tyburn, where he was 
executed, he was calm, patient and forgiving, and 
exhorted those around him. His last words were : 
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." 

Laws oppressive to the Baptists were passed., 
such as one in 1662, "to enforce uniformity in 
religion and to eject all the ministers from estab- 
lished churches who could not give unfeigned 
assent and consent to the articles of the Church of 
England, and of everything contained in the Book 
of Common Prayer, and also that would not de- 
clare upon oath that it was not lawful on any 
pretense whatever, to take up arms against the 



BAPTIST MARTYRS 273 

king." Baptists suffered under this law. Some 
were condemned to death, but were pardoned by 
the King Charles II. The "Conventicle Act" of 
1664 "prohibited any person, over sixteen years 
of age, from being present at any meeting for 
religious worship, in any other manner than is 
allowed by the liturgy of the Church of England." 
Under this law many persons were fined, impris- 
oned or banished because of their fidelity to their 
religious convictions. 

And what shall I say more? For time would 
fail me to tell of Daniel Defoe, Thomas Dulaune, 
Francis Barnfield, Vavasor Powell, John Bunyan, 
Henry Dunster, John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, 
and many others too numerous even to call by 
name, who through these Baptist principles, along 
with their faith in Christ, "subdued kingdoms, 
wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped 
the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, 
escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness 
were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned 
to flight armies of aliens" (Heb. n : 33, 34), and 
on account of these Baptist principles, "others 
had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea, more- 
over of bonds and imprisonment ; they were stoned, 
they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they 
were slain with the sword: they went about in 
sheepskins, in goatskins ; being destitute, afflicted, 
ill treated (of whom the world was not worthy), 
wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, 

18 



274 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



and the holes of the earth" (Heb. n: 36-38). 
"Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed 
about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside 
every weight, and the sin which doth so easily 
beset us, and let us run with patience the race that 
is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and 
perfecter of our faith" (Heb. 12: 1, 2). 



LETTER NO. 24 



SOME PROMINENT BAPTISTS. 

My Dear Son : — Not all Baptists have been 
martyrs in the sense of suffering death or impris- 
onment or other persecution for their principles, 
though, as we have seen, many of them have 
done so. 

The word martyr means literally a witness, and 
a person may be a witness for the truth by living 
for it as well as by dying for it. Besides those 
Baptists who have died for these Baptist prin- 
ciples, of whom I spoke in my last letter, there 
are many who have lived for them. Of these I 
can only mention a very few, comparatively. 

I have already referred to such men as Peter 
de Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, Arnold of Brescia, 
Peter Waldo, in France; Conrad Grebel, Felix 
Mantz, George Blaurock, Ludwig Hetzer, in 
Switzerland; Nicholas Storch, Marcus Stubner, 
Thomas Munzer, Balthazar Hubmaier, John 
Denck, Melchior Hoffman, in Germany; Menno 
Simons, in Holland; Thomas Helwys, John 
Smyth, William Kiffin, John Spillsbury, in Eng- 
land. All of these held Baptist doctrines with 
more or less distinctness. Coming to later times 
and to men clearly recognized as Baptists, I may 

(275) 



276 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

mention : John Bunyan, the author of the immor- 
tal allegory, "Pilgrim's Progress," of which more 
copies have been sold than of any other book 
except the Book of books, the Bible, a book which 
has lived through the centuries to bless mankind, 
and which will continue to live and bless mankind, 
as long as the world shall stand. Bunyan was a 
Baptist preacher, and it was for preaching Baptist 
doctrines that he was thrown in Bedford jail, 
where he wrote the "Pilgrim's Progress." 

Then there was the blind poet, John Milton, 
author of the greatest epic poem ever written, 
"Paradise Lost," and one of the few great world 
poets. Milton was essentially a Baptist. There 
were the cultured, the polished, the accomplished 
Robert Hall, probably the most eloquent preacher 
of any denomination that ever graced a London 
pulpit ; John Howard, one of the greatest philan- 
thropists the world ever saw, and the father of 
prison reform ; John Foster, the brilliant essayist ; 
John Gill, Alexander Maclaren, the able Bible 
expositors; Andrew Fuller and Augustus H. 
Strong, the profound theologians ; William Carey, 
Adoniram Judson, Matthew T. Yates, the distin- 
guished and successful missionaries ; Charles H. 
Spurgeon, the greatest preacher the world ever 
saw, since Paul, more of whose sermons have 
been published than of any preacher ever in the 
world; Richard Fuller and George C. Lorimer, 
two of the greatest preachers of the Western Hem- 



SOME PROMINENT BAPTISTS 



277 



isphere; Joseph Hughes, the founder of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society ; William Fox, 
the organizer of the first great National Society 
in behalf of Sunday Schools; B. F. Jacobs, the 
father of our present International Sunday school 
lesson system; James P. Boyce, the founder of 
the largest purely Theological Seminary in the 
world ; John A. Broadus, the author of the great- 
est commentary on a single book in the Bible 
(Broadus on Matthew), one of the greatest 
preachers, and I think the greatest uninspired 
teacher who ever lived; Roger Williams, the 
apostle of Religious Liberty in America; Henry 
Dunster, the first President of Harvard College, 
who was turned out of the presidency of that col- 
lege for his sympathy with Baptist views ; Daniel 
Defoe, author of "Robinson Crusoe/' the most 
popular book for children ever written; Mary 
Johnston, perhaps the most popular present day 
novelist ; John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in 
the world ; Charles E. Hughes, Governor of New 
York ; A. J. Montague, ex-Governor of Virginia ; 
C. B. Aycock, ex-Governor, and W. W. Kitchin, 
present Governor, of North Carolina; Joseph 
Brown, Sr. and Jr., respectively, former Governor 
and present Governor of Georgia ; W. J. Northen 
and Joshua M. Terrell, ex-Governors of Georgia; 
W. S. Jennings, ex-Governor of Florida ; A. H. 
Longino, ex-Governor, and E. F. Noel, pres- 
ent Governor of Mississippi ; W. W. Heard, 



278 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 



ex-Governor of Louisiana; James P. Eagle, ex- 
Governor of Arkansas; Joseph W. Folk, ex- 
Governor of Missouri ; William B. Bate, for four 
years Governor and for eighteen years United 
States Senator from Tennessee ; Wm, L. Wilson, 
author of the Wilson tariff law, and Postmaster- 
General in President Cleveland's cabinet; David 
Lloyd George, member of the present British 
Cabinet, and many others too numerous to men- 
tion, who have filled all the walks of life, and filled 
them nobly and honorably. 

It is but repetition of some things I have just 
said to call attention to the fact that the greatest 
uninspired prose writer in the world was a Baptist 
— John Bunyan ; one of the greatest poets was a 
Baptist — John Milton; the greatest writer for 
children was a Baptist — Daniel Defoe ; the great- 
est philanthropist was a Baptist — John Howard ; 
the greatest preacher was a Baptist — Charles H. 
Spurgeon; the greatest teacher was a Baptist — 
John A. Broadus ; the richest man in the world or 
ever in the world is a Baptist — John D. Rocke- 
feller. (Notice how often the given name "J°hn" 
occurs. Evidently there was more than one John 
the Baptist.) 

Among the great enterprises of the world the 
modern missionary movement was founded by a 
Baptist — William Carey ; the British and Foreign 
Bible Society was founded by a Baptist — Joseph 
Hughes ; Religious Liberty in America was 



SOME PROMINENT BAPTISTS 279 

founded by a Baptist — Roger Williams ; the Free 
School System of America was founded by a Bap- 
tist — Dr. John Clarke, pastor of the First Baptist 
Church, Newport, Rhode Island, who founded 
the first free school in America in 1675 5 tne Inter- 
national Sunday School lesson system was 
founded by a Baptist — B. F. Jacobs ; the largest 
purely theological Seminary in the world, and the 
first to adopt the eclectic system of education was 
founded by a Baptist — James P. Boyce ; the first 
chair of Sunday School Pedagogy ever estab- 
lished was established in this Seminary by the 
Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist 
Convention. 

Was it only an accident that Baptists were the 
founders of these things ? Oh, no ! They were 
only the natural and logical expression of Bap- 
tist principles — their principles of Loyalty to 
God's word, of Religious Liberty, of Individual- 
ism and other principles. 



LETTER NO. 25 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS. 

My Dear Son : — We have seen that Baptists 
have been useful and honorable citizens in all the 
walks of life. One of the most useful lines to 
which any one can direct his attention is writing 
hymns. "Let me write the songs of a land/' said 
Fletcher, "and you may write its laws." He knew 
that if he could write the songs, he would write 
the laws through the influence of the songs. 
There is nothing so powerful as a popular song, 
especially one expressing a moral idea or a devo- 
tional sentiment. It sings itself into the' heart 
of a people. It becomes a part of their life. It 
is sung at church and Sunday school and prayer 
meeting, chanted around the fireside, hummed at 
work or play. It gets into the conscience of a 
people, moulds their character and finds expres- 
sion in their preaching, their practice and their 
laws. 

Perhaps you will be surprised to know how 
many of our greatest and most popular songs have 
been written by Baptists. A few years ago Dr. 
Henry S. Burrage, of Portland, Maine, published 
a book called "Baptist Hymn Writers and Their 

(280) 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS 281 

Hymns." It contains brief sketches of the lives 
of those Baptist hymn writers, together with the 
first lines of their hymns, and usually one or more 
of their hymns in full. It makes a large book of 
682 pages. I can barely refer to some of the most 
popular of these hymns, and give simply the name 
of the author, with the date of his birth and death, 
as far as practicable. Most of the hymns I shall 
mention are so familiar that it will only be neces- 
sary to give the first lines. These hymns may 
nearly all of them be found in any good hymn 
book. Among the many hymn writers and their 
hymns I select, somewhat at random, the follow- 
ing, taking them in their chronological order : 

Joseph Stennett, 1663-1713, London: 

"Another six days' work is done." 
"Lord, at thy table I behold." 

Daniel Turner, 1 710- 1789, Abington, England : 

"Jesus, full of all compassion." 

"Faith adds new charms to earthly bliss." 

Anna Steele, 1716-1778, Broughton, England: 
"Father, whate'er of earthly bliss." 

Benjamin Beddome, 1717-1795. Bourton-on- 
the- Water : 

"Did Christ o'er sinners weep." 
"And must I part with all I have." 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

"Let party names no more." 
"Come, Holy Spirit, come." 
"Jesus, my Lord, my chief delight" 
"If Christ is mine, then all is mine." 
"Prayer is the breath of God in man." 
"God in the Gospel of his Son." 
"Blest Comforter, divine." 
"Buried beneath the yielding wave." 

Edmond Jones, 1722-1765, Wales: 
"Come, humble sinner, in whose breast." 

Samuel Stennett, 1727- 1795, grandson of 
Joseph Stennett : 

"Majestic sweetness sits enthroned." 
"On Jordan's stormy banks I stand." 
"How charming is the place." 
"Here at thy table, Lord, we meet." 
"Where two or three with sweet accord." 
" 'Tis finished ! so the Saviour cried." 

Robert Robinson, 1735- 1790, Cambridge, 
England : 

"Come, thou fount of every blessing." 

Samuel Smedley, 1738- 1799: 

"O, could I speak the matchless worth." 
"Awake, my soul, in joyful lays." 
"O what amazing words of grace 
Are in the Gospel found." 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS 283 

John Favvcett, 1739-1817, Bradford, England: 

"Religion is the chief concern." 
"How precious is the book divine." 
"Thy way, O God, is in the sea." 
"Thy presence, gracious God, afford." 
"Praise to thee, thou great Creator." 
"Thus far my God hath led me on." 
"With humble heart and tongue." 
"Blest be the tie that binds." 

The last is his best-known hymn. The circum- 
stances under which it was written are quite 
interesting. He was pastor of a small country 
chruch at Bradford, England. At length he was 
invited to succeed Dr. Gill, in London, and ac- 
cepted the call. The wagons came to remove his 
goods, and when they were loaded the people 
gathered round, broken-hearted over the depart- 
ure of their beloved pastor. At last Mrs. Fawcett 
said, "I cannot bear this ; I know not how to go." 
"Nor I either/' said Dr. Fawcett, "nor will we," 
and he ordered the goods to be carried back into 
the house, wrote to London declining the call, and 
then wrote this familiar hymn. 

George Keith or R. Keene, both leaders of the 
singing in Dr. Rippon's church : 

"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord." 

Richard Burnham, 1749-1810: 

"Jesus, thou art the sinner's friend, 
As such I look to thee." 



284 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

John Adams, 1751-1835: 
"Jesus is our great salvation." 

John Ryland, 1753- 1825 : 

"In all my Lord's appointed ways/' 
"Lord, teach a little child to pray/' 
"Sovereign Ruler of the skies." 

Joseph Swain, 1761-1796: 

"Let Zion's watchmen all awake." 
"How sweet, how heavenly is the sight." 

Krishnu Pal, first Burman convert, 1821 : 
"O thou, my soul, forget no more." 

John Burton, 1773-1822: 

"Holy Bible, book divine!" 
"Time is winging us away." 
"O thou that hearest prayer." 

David Denham, 1791-1848: 

"Mid scenes of confusion and creature complaints." 

Edward Mote, 1797-1874: 

"My hope is built on nothing less." 

Amos Sutton, 1802- 1854: 

"Hail, sweetest, dearest tie that binds." 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS 285 

Mary E. Leslie, 1834- : 

"They are gathering homeward from every land." 

Charles H. Spurgeon, 1834- 1893: 
"The Holy Ghost is here." 

Among the American Baptist hymn writers 
are: 

Benjamin Cleaveland, 1733-1811 : 

"Oh, could I find from day to day," 
A nearness to my God." 

John Leland, of Virginia, 1754-1841 : 

"The day is past and gone." 

"When the Saviour, long triumphant." 

Richard Furman, of South Carolina, 1755- 
1825: 

"Sovereign of all the world's above." 

Jesse Mercer, of Georgia, 1 769-1 841, author of 
Response to — 

"Come, humble sinner, in whose breast," 

beginning — 

"Resolving thus I entered in." 

Robert T. Daniel, Virginia, 1773-1840: 
"Lord, in humble, sweet submission." 



286 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Wiliam Parkinson, Maryland, 1774-1848: 

"No mortal ties can be compared/' 
"How long and tedious are the days." 
"Alas ! the deep deceit and sin." 
"The Father's free electing grace/' 
"Great Shepherd of thine Israel's host/' 
"Come, dear brethren in the Saviour." 
"Long with doubt and fears surrounded." 
"How long, Great God, shall wretched I," 
"When, O my Jesus, Saviour, when?" 

Joseph B. Cook, 1775-1833 : 

"Bought with the Saviour's precious blood." 
"With reverence we would now appear." 
"Repent, repent, the Baptist cries." 
"Jesus, we own thy sovereign sway." 
"Filled with distress, the fruit of sin." 
"Hail, joyful morn, which ushered in," 
"Thou, sacred Spirit, heavenly Dove." 
"Up to thy throne, O God of Love." 
"O help thy servant, Lord." 
"The year has passed away." 

Adoniram Judson, 1788- 1850: 

"Together let us sweetly live, 

Together let us die." 
"Come, Holy Spirit, Dove divine, 

On these baptismal waters shine." 
"Our Saviour bowed beneath the wave." 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS 287 

William C. Buck, 1790- 1872: 

"Great God, our thought of thee." 

"Gracious Lord, hast thou redeemed me?" 

"0 shout for the day of the Lord." 

"Alone in the world though a pilgrim I roam," 

"Behold, O Lord, at thy command." 

Samuel F. Smith, 1808- : 



"Today the Saviour calls." 
"Yes, my native land, I love thee." 
"The morning light is breaking." 
"My country, 'tis of thee." 
"Softly fades the light of day." 
"As flows the rapid river." 

Lydia Baxter, 1800-1874: 

"On the banks beyond the river." 
"O ! shall I wear a starless crown." 
"We are coming, blessed Saviour." 
"By the gate they'll meet us." 
"The bright hills of glory." 
"Take the name of Jesus with you." 
"There is a gate that stands ajar." 

A. M. Poindexter, 1809-1872 : 

"Eternal God! Almighty Power." 
"Faith is of endless life the spring." 
"While through this wilderness below." 
"Blest Sabbath ! day of holy rest." 
"O our Redeemer, God." 
"His sacred head the Holy One." 
"Head of the church ! to thee we bow." 



288 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

S. S. Cutting, D.D., 1813-1882: 

"Green the hillside, ever fair/' 
"God of the world, near and afar." 

Gurdon Robins, 1813-1883: 

"When thickly beat the storms of life." 
"There is a land mine eyes have seen." 
"No night shall be in heaven, no gathering gloom." 

S. Dryden Phelps, 1816-. . . . : 



"Christ who came my soul to save." 
"Did Jesus weep for me?" 
"Saviour, thy dying love." 

Basil Manly, Jr., 1825-189. . : 

"Holy, holy, holy Lord." 

"Soldiers of Christ in truth arrayed/' 

Robert Lowry, 1826- . 



"Shall we gather at the river?" 
"Shall we know each other there?" 
"One more day's work for Jesus." 
"Weeping will not save me." 
: "The Rifted Rock." 

"Where is my boy tonight." 
"Jesus is my Saviour." 

Dr. Lowry was also the author of the music to 
the following hymns : 

"I need thee every hour." 

"The mistakes of my life have been many." 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS 289 

"How can I keep from singing. 
"All the way my Saviour leads me." 
"Shall we know each other there." 
"Saviour, thy dying love." 
"One more day's work for Jesus." 
"When the Comforter comes." 
"We are marching to Zion." 

William H. Doane, 1832- . . . . : 



"Safe in the arms of Jesus." 
"Rescue the perishing." 
"More like Jesus would I be." 
"Near the cross a trembling soul." 

The music for the following hymns was com- 
posed by Dr. Doane : 

"Pass me not, O gentle Saviour." 
"Jesus, keep me near the cross." 
"More love to thee, O Christ." 
"Take the name of Jesus with you." 

Joseph Henry Gilmore, 1834- . . . . : 
"He leadeth me, O blessed thought." 

Mrs. Annie S. Hawks, 1836- . . . . : 



"I need thee every hour." 

"I am the Lord's and he is mine." 

"Lord, let me live for thee, for thee." 

"Who'll be the next to follow Jesus." 

"What can wash away my stain." 

19 



290 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

P. P. Bliss, 1838- 1876, the singing evangelist, 
the companion of Major D. W. Whittle in evan- 
gelistic work and along with Ira D. Sankey the 
complier of the popular song book, "Gospel 
Hymns." Mr. Bliss was first a Baptist, but 
afterward became a Congregationalist : 

' 'Tis the promise of God, full salvation to give." 
" 'Whosoever heareth,' shout, shout the sound/' 
"Ho! my comrades, see the signal." 
"Free from the law, oh, happy condition." 
"I am so glad that my Father in heaven." 
"Have you on the Lord believed." 
"The whole world was lost in the darkness of sin." 
"Brightly beams our Father's mercy." 
"Almost persuaded now to believe." 
"Only an armor bearer, proudly I stand." 
"Light in the darkness, sailor, day is at hand." 
"More holiness give me." 
"Repeat the story o'er and o'er." 
"Standing by a purpose true." 
"In Zion's Rock abiding." 
"Tenderly the Shepherd." 
"I will sing of my Redeemer." 
"Sing them over again to me." 

A. J. Rowland, 1840- . . . . : 



"Speak a word for Jesus, brother." 
"There's rest in the shadow of Jesus." 
"O Spirit, stay." 

C. C. Luther, 1847- • 

"Must I go and empty-handed." 



BAPTIST HYMN WRITERS 291 

In the above list of Baptist hymn writers, I am 
sure you must have been impressed with two 
things : 

i. The number of hymns written by Baptists. 
On this point I may say, though, that I have not 
given perhaps one-tenth of the Baptist hymn 
writers and their hymns given by Dr. Burrage. I 
have only selected a few of the most prominent of 
them. 

2. The quality as well as the quantity of hymns 
written by Baptists. Among them, for instance, 
are such famous and popular hymns as : 

"All hail the power of Jesus' name.'' 
"How firm a foundation." 
"Blest be the tie that binds." 
"My hope is built on nothing less." 
"My country, 'tis of thee." 
"The morning light is breaking." 
"Shall we gather at the river ?" 
"Safe in the arms of Jesus" — 

and many other similarly popular hymns. To 
have been able to write these hymns is certainly 
a matter of glory for the Baptists. What a con- 
tribution they have been to the world's literature. 
Suppose they had not been written! Suppose 
there had been no Baptists to write them ! How 
could the Christian world have gotten along with- 
out them ? 



LETTER NO. 26 



BAPTIST GROWTH. 

My Dear Son : — With such principles as I 
have indicated, with such a glorious history, and 
with so many noble men, Baptists, as might be 
supposed, have had a wonderful growth. In 
numbers, their growth has been remarkable. On 
account of the persecutions against them, and the 
fact that owing to these persecutions they were 
compelled to hide out in dens and caves of the 
forests and to come into public view as little as 
possible, we are unable even to approximate their 
numbers before the Reformation under Luther 
and for some time afterward. As I have shown, 
though, there were people, more or less numerous, 
in different ages and countries hiding essential 
Baptist principles. 

In America we are able to give their numbers 
definitely almost from the beginning. In a little 
book entitled, 'The Baptist Hand Book for 1909," 
published by the American Baptist Publication 
Society, the following table of Baptists in the 
United States from 1639 to 1909 is given : 

(882) 



BAPTIST GROWTH 



293 



Tear 


Churches 


Ministers 


Membership 


Membership to 
Population 


Contributions so far 
as Reported 


1639 


1 

17 
37 

77 

471 

1,000 

2,433 

5,320 

9,552 

22, 924 

34,780 

43,427 

47, 409 

48, 302 










1707 _ 










1740. . 










1770. 










1784... 
1792. _ 


424 

1,264 

1,922 

3,647 

7,393 

13,779 

22, 703 

29, 473 

34,038 

34,132 


35, 101 

70,017 

189, 345 

384,859 

770, 839 

1,932,385 

3,164,227 

4, lei, 686 

4,969,524 

5, 115, 177 


1 to 94 
1 to 62 
1 to 42 
1 to 34 
1 to 30 
1 to 23 
1 to 21 
1 to 18 
1 to 18 
1 to 16 




1812 




1832__ 




1852__ 
1876.. 
1890. . 
1900.. 
1908. _ 
1909. . 


9 4,698,352.94 
11,215,579.70 
12,348,327.90 
22,268,892.79 

22,813,864.28 



According to the Annual of the Southern Bap- 
tist Convention for 1909, the figures for 1908 are 
as follows : 

Total white Baptist membership in the South. .2,139,080 

Other American States 1,176,380 

Estimated colored membership in Southern 

States 1,829,683 

Total in the United States 5,145,143 

Canada, including Maritime Provinces 122,305 

Europe (English Handbook) 563,877 

Asia (English Handbook) 162,582 

Africa (English Handbook) 15^97 

Australia (English Handbook) 25,680 

Baptist membership in world 6,090,207 



This makes a total Baptist membership in this 
country compared to population, which is esti- 
mated at 88,000,000, of one to seventeen — seven- 



294 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

teen to one. That is, there is one Baptist in the 
United States for every seventeen people in the 
country. In the above table, however, only mem- 
bers of Baptist churches are included. If you 
include the Baptist population, like the Catholics 
do — that is, all who are Baptists in sentiment or 
under Baptist influence, such as children and other 
members of Baptist families who are not members 
of the church — there would be, at least, twice as 
many more ; and, according to the usual rule of 
calculation, three times as many more Baptists in 
the country, making about one Baptist to every six 
of the population, or one to eight, at most. It 
will be noticed how Baptists are growing, propor- 
tionately, much more rapidly than the population 
of the country. It seems that the Baptists are 
growing in geometrical ratio and not simply in 
arithmetical ratio in proportion to population. I 
leave to the mathematically inclined to take the 
above table and work out the problem, how long, 
at the present ratio, it will be before the Baptists 
have swallowed up the whole population, and 
everybody in this country is a Baptist. I may 
only say now that it looks as if it is a mathematical 
certainty that this will be true sometime, and indi- 
cations are that it will be at no very distant day. 
A few other facts will be of interest. 

According to the American Baptist Year Book 
for 1909 there were 294,383 persons received into 
the Baptist churches of this country by baptism. 



BAPTIST GROWTH 295 

The net increase in Baptist membership was 
145,653. There were 557 new churches reported, 
making an addition of over ten churches a week. 
There was an increase of 301 Sunday schools and 
145,194 scholars, while the advance in contribu- 
tions amounted to $544,971.53. The Baptists of 
the United States have 32,815 Sunday schools, 
with 235,156 officers and teachers, and 2,386,800 
pupils, making a total membership of 2,621,956. 
The Baptists of the United States have also ten 
Theological Seminaries, ninety-four Universities 
and colleges, and eighty-four academies and sim- 
ilar institutions, making altogether one hundred 
and eighty-eight institutions, with a total value of 
endowment and property of $67,975,449, with 
3,130 instructors, 51,037 students, of whom 3,459 
are studying for the ministry. 

According to the report of the census bureau 
the Methodists in 1906 were the largest religious 
body in the United States, having 5,749,888 mem- 
bers, and the Baptists come next with 5,662,234 
members, or only 87,654 less. The rate of in- 
crease given for the Methodists for the sixteen 
years from 1890 to 1906 was 25.3 per cent, and 
the rate of increase for the Baptists was 52.5 per 
cent. As these figures were for the year 1906, 
there can be no question but that the more rapid 
rate of increase of the Baptists has carried them 
ahead of the Methodists. The Baptists are there- 



296 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

fore now the largest Protestant religious body in 
the United States. 

You will notice from the above figures that 
about four-fifths of the Baptists in the United 
States are in the South, counting white and colored 
Baptists together. While there are only about one 
million Baptists in the North, there are over four 
millions in the South, over two millions white, 
and nearly two millions colored. In the North 
the Baptists are largely outnumbered by both the 
Methodists and the Presbyterians. In the South, 
though, the white Baptists outnumber the white 
Methodists by about two hundred thousand, mak- 
ing them the largest white denomination, while 
the negroes are, nearly all of them, Baptists. Per- 
haps three-fourths of them are so. 

These facts would indicate that the South is 
the Baptist Palestine. It is the Promised Land 
for the Baptists. It is here that Baptist principles 
seem to have taken a deeper root than anywhere 
else in the world, and to bring forth more fruit. 
This is due, partly, perhaps, to the warm climate 
of the South, making immersion a comparatively 
easy matter, enabling preachers to baptize at any 
season of the year in the rivers and creeks and 
ponds. That it is not due entirely to climatic 
conditions, though, is evidenced by the fact that 
Baptists have not flourished in other warm coun- 
tries anything like so greatly as they have in the 
South. The reason for the existence of the large 



BAPTIST GROWTH 



297 



number of Baptists in the South must be sought 
for in other conditions. I believe that it is due 
largely to the nature of the Southern people. 
They are the most homogeneous people in Amer- 
ica, with the smallest admixture of foreign blood 
in their veins. The fundamental American prin- 
ciples of Individualism, Democracy, and Religious 
Liberty, are the fundamental Baptist principles. 
The Baptists typify American sentiments and ex- 
press them in their principles more nearly than 
any other denomination. Here in the South, with 
the liberty-loving, democratic ideas of Southern 
people, the Baptists have found their most fertile 
soil, in which they have grown and flourished as 
never before. It is just such a soil for which 
they have been waiting all down the ages. As 
these American principles grow the Baptists will 
grow. They now have their greatest opportunity. 
Taking deep root in this fertile i\merican soil, and 
especially this Southern soil, they will reach out, 
and will continue to reach out more and more, for 
the conquest not only of the Southland, but of this 
country and of the world. Archimedes said that 
if you would give him a fulcrum strong enough 
he could turn over the world. The South is the 
Baptist fulcrum, with which they may, and, I 
believe will, turn over the world. 

But great as has been the growth of Baptists 
in numbers, the growth of their principles has 
been even greater. The fundamental Baptist 

*19 



298 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

principles have now come to have general accepta- 
tion, even by those who are not Baptists in name. 
Take the principle of Loyalty to God's Word. 
More and more the Christian world has come to 
adopt that principle instead of the principle of 
loyalty to Pope or priest or catechism or creed or 
confession. The Bible has come. to be recognized 
as the test of faith, the touchstone of orthodoxy. 
In public discussions people do not refer to cate- 
chism and creed and confession as the ground of 
authority, but to the Bible. 'The Bible, the 
Bible alone, the religion of the Baptists/' has been 
broadened into 'The Bible, the Bible alone, the 
religion of Protestants," and is being broadened 
still more into 'The Bible, the Bible alone, the 
religion of Christians." Not only is the Bible 
still the most popular of all books, of which more 
copies have been printed than of any other book 
in the world, but there are more copies of the 
Bible being printed now than ever before. The 
demand is so great that it is almost impossible 
for the supply to keep pace with it. Printing 
presses are running day and night to meet this 
demand. Not only are more copies of the Bible 
being printed, but it is being read more and more. 
The Sunday school movement is distinctly a move- 
ment for the study of the Bible. In the United 
States alone there are now over 13,000,000 stu- 
dents in the Sunday schools of various denomina- 



BAPTIST GROWTH 299 

tions, all studying the Bible and studying all to- 
gether the same lesson in the Bible every Sunday. 

Take our principle of Religious Liberty. This, 
as we have seen, is distinctly a Baptist principle. 
It has come to be an American principle, but it 
was adopted through the influence of Baptists, as 
related by the Baptist Hand-Book. 

In August, 1789, the President of the United 
States, George Washington, was appealed to by 
the Baptists that "our religious rights were not 
well secured in our New Constitution of Govern- 
ment." He replied "that the religious society, of 
which they were members, had conscientiously 
been throughout America, uniformly the perse- 
vering promoters of the glorious Revolution, and 
assured them of his readiness to use his influence 
to make those rights indisputable." In response 
to this appeal of the Baptists and promise to them, 
the very next month the First Amendment to the 
Constitution was adopted, declaring that "Con- 
gress shall make no law respecting any estab- 
lishment of religion or prohibiting the free exer- 
cise thereof." 

Our friends of other denominations should 
understand that they are indebted to the Baptists 
for the very freedom they enjoy in this country 
to worship God according to the dictates of their 
own conscience. Not only in this country, but in 
other countries as well, this principle has grown 
until it has come to have general acceptation. 



300 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Even in Russia, the land of tyranny, that principle 
has been adopted, though in a modified form. 
Only a few years ago, the Emperor issued an 
edict granting freedom of worship to all denom- 
inations as well as to what is called the "Orthodox 
Church/' the State church of Russia. When, 
recently, all meeting places of Baptists and other 
evangelical people were closed by the government 
in St. Petersburg, Russia, it was explained that it 
was done through a misunderstanding, and when 
the matter was brought to his attention, the Rus- 
sian Prime minister ordered them to be opened at 
once. 

The Baptist principle of Separation of Church 
and State has not received such general accepta- 
tion in practice, but it is growing. Only a year 
or more ago the government of France decided in 
favor of this principle and disestablished the 
Roman Catholic Church, which had been fastened 
on France for a century or more. In England 
there is a distinct and strong movement for the 
disestablishment of what is known as the Church 
of England — that is to say, for the separation of 
Church and State — leaving bishops and priests 
and preachers to be paid by the members of their 
denomination and not by the government, as in 
the case of the State Church. 

Our principle of Individualism, the doctrine of 
manhood, the authority and responsibility of every 
man under God, has come to have almost univer- 



BAPTIST GROWTH 301 

sal acceptance by other denominations as well as 
by Baptists. Along with it there is a growing- 
spirit of Congregationalism, of the right and duty 
of the churches to manage their own affairs with- 
out any influence or interference from high 
officials outside of the churches. 

Our principle of Regeneration Before Church 
Membership has also permeated other denomina- 
tions besides Baptists, so much so that you do not 
hear anything like so much now r as formerly about 
infant baptism, and the practice has almost fallen 
into an "innocuous desuetude, ,, as President 
Cleveland would have said. Preachers of other 
denominations insist more upon regeneration be- 
fore church membership than ever before, and 
urge, even upon those who have been baptized in 
infancy, the importance of repentance for their 
sins and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their 
Saviour. 

Our principle of Immersion has won its way so 
completely that it is now universally accepted by 
the scholarship of the world. Since my letter on 
Immersion was written, I have come across the 
following extract taken from the recent book by 
Dr. Henry VanDyke, entitled, "Out of Doors in 
the Holy Land." In the chapter on Jericho and 
Jordan, after speaking of the unattractiveness of 
the stream, Dr. VanDyke says : "No, it was not 
because the Jordan was beautiful that John the 
Baptist chose it as the scene of his preaching and 



302 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

ministry,, but because it was wild and wide, an 
emblem of violent and sudden change, of irre- 
vocable parting, of death itself, and because in its 
one gift of copious and unfailing water, he found 
the necessary element for his deep baptism of 
repentance, in which the sinful past of the crowd 
who followed him was to be symbolically im- 
mersed and buried and washed away." 

Dr. VanDyke, it will be remembered, is an 
eminent Presbyterian minister and a professor in 
Princeton Theological Seminary. But more than 
that, he is a scholar, and he has the courage to 
acknowledge the truth when he sees it, whether it 
fits his own denominational tenets or not. The 
above remarks of Dr. VanDyke are in accord with 
those made by many another Pedobaptist scholar, 
particularly Canon Farrar, of the Church of 
England. As a matter of fact, there is not a single 
scholar of any denomination, with world-wide 
reputation, who would risk his reputation on say- 
ing that baptizo means anything else but to dip, to 
plunge, to immerse. This is practically a closed 
question now. The Baptists have fought the 
battle and whipped the fight on that question. 

So as to our doctrine of Restricted Communion, 
or, as it means really, Baptism Before the Supper. 
As I have shown in discussing that subject, all 
denominations take the same position that Baptists 
do, that baptism should come before the Supper, 



BAPTIST GROWTH 303 

though there is still more or less difference of 
opinion as to what constitutes baptism. 

And so with all of our Baptist principles. 

The Unitarians boast that while they have not 
many members, their principles have largely per- 
meated other denominations. If this be true of 
Unitarian principles, it is true to a still greater 
extent of Baptist principles. 

I said that the South is the Promised Land of 
the Baptists. It is also true that this is their 
Golden Age. This is the Baptist day in the courts 
of the world. This is the Baptist opportunity. 
Never were their principles so popular as now. 
Never was the world so ready to hear them as 
now. Everywhere the democratic spirit is grow- 
ing and becoming more and more triumphant. 
The classes are yielding to the masses. Th^ 
rights of the individual are being more and more 
recognized and exalted. This democratic spirit 
is but a counterpart of the Baptist spirit, and both 
have their common origin in the New Testament 
spirit. The time was when to be a Baptist meant 
to be hated and despised and hunted and perse- 
cuted and beaten and burned and drowned. The 
time is when to be a Baptist means to be honored 
by men as well as by God. The time was when 
Baptists were few. The time is when they are 
many. The time was when they were poor. The 
time is when they are rich. The time was when 
men felt afraid to let it be known that they were 



304 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

Baptists. The time is when they are proud to be 
known as Baptists. The time was when some, 
perhaps, were ashamed to be called by the Baptist 
name. The time is when to be a Baptist is 
greater than to be a king. For my part I would 
rather be a Baptist and not a king than a king and 
not a Baptist. 

The following story is told of an Englishman, 
Scotchman and Irishman. As they were talking 
together the question came, If you were not your- 
self, what would you be? The Englishman said 
that if he were not an Englishman he believed 
that he w r ould be a Scotchman. The Scotchman 
returned the compliment by saying that if he were 
not a Scotchman he would be an Englishman. 
They then asked the Irishman, "Pat, if you were 
not an Irishman, what would you be?" "An' 
faith," he replied, "if I were not an Irishman, I 
would be — ashamed of myself/' And so I feel, if 
I were not a Baptist, I would be ashamed of my- 
self. The time may have been when men were 
ashamed to be Baptists. The time now is, it 
seems to me, when they ought to be ashamed not 
to be Baptists, in the light of these noble Baptist 
principles, of which I have been speaking. They 
are the most beautiful system of principles in the 
world. They are God-given, Christ-taught, 
blood-bought principles, and it seems to me that 
they ought to be accepted by the whole world, as 
I believe ultimately they will be. 



BAPTIST GROWTH 305 

Several preachers were sitting together at din- 
ner one day. Among- them was Dr. T. G. Jones, 
formerly pastor of the First Baptist Church, Nash- 
ville (who baptized your mother and who also 
preached my ordination sermon). Another one 
of the party was Dr. John Pollard, of Richmond, 
Va. The question came, If you were not a Bap- 
tist, what would you be ? One of the party said 
that he would be a Catholic, another an Episco- 
palian, another a Methodist, etc. Dr. Jones said, 
if he were not a Baptist, he believed that he would 
be a Presbyterian, because the Presbyterians are 
nearer the Baptists in their doctrines of grace than 
anv other denomination. Dr. Pollard said, "Dr. 
Jones, I am surprised at you." "Well," Dr. Jones 
said to Dr. Pollard, "If you were not a Baptist, 
what would you be?" "Why," replied Dr. Pol- 
lard, "if I were not a Baptist, / would be a Bap- 
tist" And so it seems to me, if I were not a 
Baptist, I would be a Baptist, and I would not 
•ose much time about it either. So far as I am 
concerned, I am not ashamed of being a Baptist. 
On the contrary, I am glad that I am a Baptist. 
I ?m proud to be a Baptist. I believe thoroughly 
in these Baptist principles, which I have been dis- 
cussing — in every one of them. I love my breth- 
ren of other denominations, but at the same time 
I am a Baptist up and up and through and through 
and in and in and out and out. I cannot help it. 



306 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

and I confess that I have no disposition to help it. 
The longer I live the stronger Baptist I become, 
because the more I study these Baptist principles 
the more I believe in them. 

As I told you, your ancestors on both sides of 
my family, so far as I can trace them back, have 
been Baptists. You have come into the heritage 
of these Baptist principles. Hold on to them. 
The first thing, I want you to be thoroughly regen- 
erated through the operation of the Holy Spirit 
upon your heart, leading to repentance for your 
sins and the aceptance of Jesus Christ as your 
personal Saviour. I then want you to unite with 
some Baptist church, follow your Lord in baptism 
as an expression of your repentance for sin and 
your faith in Him, and then, w T hether as minister 
or layman — the decision of this question must be 
left with you and God — I want you to dedicate 
your life to the propagation of these Baptist 
principles. 

This I want to add in conclusion : Somewhere 
there is a little Baptist church, feeble and strug- 
gling, whose members perhaps are few and poor, 
especially when compared with churches of other 
denominations in the community, and who some- 
times grow discouraged and feel like giving up 
the struggle. Oh, little band of Baptists, faint 
not. "Fear not, little flock, for it is God's good 
pleasure to give you the kingdom. " Lift up your 
heads ! Look around ! Recognize that you are 



BAPTIST GROWTH 



307 



part of this mighty host of Baptists that is sweep- 
ing onward to the conquest of this Southland, and 
of this country of ours and of the world, to Christ 
and to these Baptist principles! Realize the 
beauty, the glory, the majesty, the power of these 
principles, and as the message from the skies 
came to Constantine, "In hoc signo vinces" ("By 
this sign conquer''), the sign of the Cross of 
Christ, so I would say to you, "In his principiis 
vincetis" ("By these principles conquer"), by 
these Baptist principles, these God-given, Christ- 
taught, blood-bought, New Testament Baptist 
principles, conquer! Let the fact that you are 
part of such a mighty host, and that you hold such 
glorious principles, be an inspiration to cheer you 
onward and upward in your fight for Christ and 
for the Baptist cause. 

To Baptists everywhere I have this 



FINAL WORD. 

Noblesse oblige. The nobility is obliged to do 
right. And so Baptists are obliged. By the very 
principles which they hold, they are under peculiar 
obligations to do right. There rests upon them 
also a tremendous responsibility to see that these 
principles are propagated and that everybody 



308 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES 

throughout the world shall have the opportunity 
of knowing these principles ; and knowing them, 
I believe that many, very many, will be led to 
accept them. 

And may God's blessings be upon all who love 
our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and especially 
upon those who are of the household of the Bap- 
tist faith. 



Amen. 



mi 



/COPY. DEL. TO CAT. OIV. 

NOV 8 



£xf 4 3 3 1 



